search_recipes

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains the return structure (id, name, url, author) and suggests using the id with get_recipe. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the search is read-only, which leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 very concise with a clear structure: purpose, parameter explanation, and return value usage. Every sentence is meaningful with no fluff.

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 the simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no annotations), the description covers the core workflow: search, obtain id, then use get_recipe for details. It could mention constraints like result limits or login requirement, but overall it is sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: it clarifies that the query is natural-language and provides examples (e.g., 'chicken parmesan'). This goes beyond the schema's simply 'string' type.

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 the verb 'Search' and the resource 'NYT Cooking for recipes', with additional detail about natural-language query. It distinguishes from siblings like get_recipe and list_saved_recipes by implying that this tool performs searches based on query text.

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 provides query examples and explicitly ties to get_recipe for fetching full details, guiding the agent on when to use this tool vs. sibling. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives like list_saved_recipes.

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