compare_recipe

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the useful behavioral fact that results span 'all connected stores' (implying prior logins), but says nothing about authentication failure, how many stores, latency, or error behavior when no store is connected.

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-sentence summary followed by a compact Args block; the outcome (cheapest store, per-item best deal) is front-loaded. Every line earns its place, though the Args header for a single 0%-documented param is slightly redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary. The description covers what the tool does and what it accepts, but omits the prerequisite that stores must be logged in — a notable gap given the login_* siblings.

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 0% and the single parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does: 'recipe_text: Recipe text or URL' clarifies the accepted format (raw text or link), which the bare schema does not convey.

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+resource ('Parse a recipe and compare ingredient prices') and defines the output ('which store is cheapest overall and where to buy each item'). It is distinguishable from the generic compare_prices sibling, though it never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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 implies usage (supply recipe text or a URL) but gives no when/when-not guidance or routing against compare_prices, plan_recipe_ingredients, or add_recipe_to_cart, all of which touch overlapping recipe/price territory. An agent must infer the choice from names alone.

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