Search recipes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the return shape ("one line per match"), which implies a read-only, summarised listing rather than full recipes. It says nothing about pagination, the limit default, or result ordering, and mutability/safety is only implied by "Search".

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the resource scope and filter dimensions come first, the return shape second, and the no-filter behavior last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only search over a well-documented 7-parameter schema with no output schema, the description covers scope, filters, default behavior, and result granularity. Missing only pagination/limit interaction, which the schema largely covers via the limit parameter.

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 all seven parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the aggregate behavior of omitting filters (list the whole library), which is modest incremental meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb (Search) plus specific resource and scope ("the user's own cocktail library") and the four filter dimensions. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_recipe or what_can_i_make, but an agent can tell it is a multi-result, filter-driven retrieval tool rather than a single-recipe fetch.

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?

It gives one concrete usage rule — omit every filter to list the whole library — which is genuinely actionable. However, it never names or contrasts against alternatives (what_can_i_make, get_recipe, whats_next), so the when-to-use-this-vs-that decision is left to inference.

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