search_recipes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: full-text search over names and content, and the shape of the response (name + path). It does not disclose nuances like case sensitivity, sorting, pagination, or whether the operation is read-only, but the word 'search' strongly implies non-destructive behavior. Adequate but minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the return info is stated in a second concise sentence. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return value structure in depth, and it does provide the key return fields. However, for a search tool, an agent might benefit from knowing about result limits, ordering, or whether the query searches plain text or supports operators. The description is sufficient for a simple tool but leaves these contextual details unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indicates the 'query' parameter is a full-text search term applied to recipe names and content, which gives general meaning to the parameter. However, it does not specify query format, matching rules, or whether partial matches are supported, leaving the parameter semantics only partially defined.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('recipe names and content'), and clarifies it returns 'name + path'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_recipes (which lists) and read_recipe (which reads a single recipe). The scope is precise and agent-actionable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool: when a full-text search over recipe names and content is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over list_recipes or read_recipe, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative conditions. Usage context is present but only by inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.