search_recipes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool auto-paginates through all recipes and filters client-side, which is a critical implementation detail. It also gives a concrete example. However, it does not describe the return format, potential performance implications, or any rate limits, but the core non-obvious behavior is clearly revealed.

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 sentences plus an example, with no wasted words. The key behavior (client-side filtering) is stated up front, and the example is substantive and aids understanding. 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 search tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the main behavior and provides a realistic example. It does not detail the return shape or edge cases, but given four parameters and no nested objects, the description is reasonably complete. The absence of an output schema is slightly mitigated by the descriptive example.

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 75%, and the description adds extra meaning for the required 'name' parameter by giving a full example and emphasizing case-insensitivity. The other parameters already have descriptive schema text. The description enriches the primary parameter without needing to repeat all others.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search recipes by name (case-insensitive)'. It names the specific resource (recipes) and the operation (search), with an explicit behavioral note about case-insensitivity. This distinguishes it from generic list/get operations among siblings.

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 explains why the tool exists (no server-side search, so it auto-paginates and filters client-side), which implies when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_recipes or other siblings, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage context is implied but not made explicit.

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