recommend

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

With no annotations, the description clearly notes the tool returns a single best pick with specific details (pricing, code, setup time, runner-up) and that it uses 'verified pricing and setup data' more current than training data. This sets appropriate expectations without contradictions.

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 three sentences packed with essential information: purpose, output details, and comparative benefit. No unnecessary words, making it highly concise and structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (best pick, runner-up, pricing, code, setup time). It covers the key behavioral aspects, though details on how parameters like constraints influence results are not elaborated. Overall complete for a recommendation tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters clearly. The description adds modest value by emphasizing the tool is opinionated and uses verified data, but it does not provide additional semantic details for individual parameters beyond what the schema offers.

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 clearly states it provides an 'opinionated API recommendation for a task' and specifies the output includes the single best pick alongside pricing, quickstart code, setup time, and a runner-up. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'discover_apis' or 'compare_apis'.

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 indicates it is 'better than guessing' and uses current data, implying use when up-to-date recommendations are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'compare_apis' or 'discover_apis', nor provide exclusion criteria.

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