Search the recipe library

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates no side effects, and the description is consistent with that by describing a listing action. No extra behavioral context is added, but there is no contradiction, so a solid score is warranted.

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 concise sentences that pack in purpose, filtering options, and a cross-tool hint. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool without unnecessary 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 lack of an output schema, the description provides enough context about what is returned (ratings, cook counts, recipe_id) and how to use it. It is complete for the intended use case, though a bit more detail on return structure would elevate it.

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?

The description mentions filtering by text, favorites, or tag, which loosely hints at the query, favorites_only, and tag parameters, but does not explicitly map them. With no schema descriptions, this is only partial clarification.

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 that the tool lists all proposed recipes with ratings and cook counts, and mentions filtering and re-proposing via recipe_id. This gives a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 mentions filtering and using recipe_id for re-proposal, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like get_recipe or get_favorite_recipes. Guidance is implied rather than explicit, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this over siblings.

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