find_recipes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses read/search semantics, case-insensitive substring matching, empty-input behavior, and the compact return shape, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, auth needs, or rate limits.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Search semantics come first, and the return format is stated compactly.

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?

For a one-parameter finder with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains matching behavior and summarizes returned fields. It omits sibling routing, but the core behavior needed to call the tool correctly is present.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the description must carry parameter semantics. It does so by explaining that name is a case-insensitive substring and that an empty value returns all recipes, fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 and resource: "Find recipes by name." It also defines the search scope with case-insensitive substring matching and empty-returns-all behavior, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling get_recipe or explain when to prefer one over the other.

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 gives clear usage context: search by name is case-insensitive, and an empty string returns all recipes. It does not, however, name alternatives such as get_recipe or state explicit exclusions, so the agent must infer sibling routing.

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