ht_search_recipes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and open-world nature are covered. The description adds the useful fact that results carry only summary fields, but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, rate limits, or what the view modes change, so it adds modest value beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the sibling-routing note follows immediately. Every clause carries actionable information.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is the main thing an agent needs to decide whether a search result suffices. It is only slightly incomplete in omitting pagination and view-mode behavior, which are relevant for a 4-parameter search 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 coverage is only 50%: `query` and `view` are documented in-schema, while `limit` and `offset` have no descriptions at all. The description only restates the keyword nature of `query` and never explains pagination bounds, defaults, or how result counts interact with the returned field set, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search Harris Teeter recipes by keyword") plus the summary fields returned (title, total time, servings, ingredient count). The second sentence explicitly distinguishes it from ht_get_recipe, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear routing guidance: use this tool for keyword lookup, and use ht_get_recipe when ingredients, steps, or matching products are needed. It stops short of stating exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., that only the compact projection is returned), so it is strong but not fully explicit about when-not to use it.

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