create_recipe_from_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool scrapes data, supports most recipe sites with schema.org format, and reveals failure behavior ('returns success:false with diagnostic info'). It also advises to check diagnostics before retrying. Missing details like rate limits or auth requirements, but for a create operation with failure handling, this is strong additional transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and zero filler. Every clause contributes value: the scraping method, structured data support, and failure fallback. This is a model of concise yet informative description.

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 moderate-complexity create tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage context: what it does, what it supports, and failure behavior. It also hints at a sibling for fallback. The lack of an output schema means return-value details would help, but the failure diagnostics mention partially compensates. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, with clear descriptions for 'url' and 'includeTags'. The tool description adds context about scraping and structured data but does not elaborate on parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new recipe by scraping data from a URL.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from manual creation by specifying the scraping mechanism and mentions support for structured data (schema.org). The fallback reference to create_recipe further differentiates the tool from sibling tools.

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 provides clear context on when this tool is appropriate: for URLs with structured recipe data. It also gives an explicit fallback instruction ('falling back to create_recipe') on failure, which helps an agent decide between this and the manual sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like test_scrape_url or create_recipe_from_html, leaving some ambiguity about which URL-based tool to choose in edge cases.

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