get_random_recipes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or whether results are deterministic. The description is minimally adequate for a simple tool.

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?

A single sentence that conveys the core functionality and optional filtering. No unnecessary words or repetition. Appropriate length for a simple tool.

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 tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main purpose and the optional filter. Minor gap: does not describe the return format, but for random recipes it is acceptable.

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% and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The top-level description mentions the tags filter but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for either parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'random recipes', and mentions optional filtering by tags. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_recipes (search vs random) and get_recipe_information (specific vs random).

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 use when random recipes are desired, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings like search_recipes or find_recipes_by_ingredients. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.

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