search_recipes

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

Annotations already convey idempotence and non-destructiveness, and the description adds the behavioral detail of 'save their details' plus returning IDs and summaries. However, it does not clarify what 'save' actually does, whether it causes side effects, or what happens to previously saved data.

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 a single sentence with no filler and the core action ('Find recipes by dish name') is front-loaded. Every clause contributes identifiable information, even if 'save their details' is ambiguous in meaning.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be elaborated, but the description still omits max_results semantics and fails to position the tool against search_by_first_letter. The ambiguous 'save their details' behavior also leaves an important gap for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 mentions 'dish name', which maps to the dish_name parameter, but it never addresses max_results, its default value, or how result limiting behaves. Thus, one of two parameters is left entirely undocumented.

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 a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('recipes') with a filtering criterion ('by dish name') and expected outputs ('IDs and summaries'). However, the phrase 'save their details' is ambiguous about whether the tool persists data, and it does not differentiate this from the sibling search_by_first_letter.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_by_first_letter or get_recipe_details. The description implies searching by dish name but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts.

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