create_recipes_create_html_or_json

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions parsing input like a URL, but does not explain the outcome (e.g., returns a recipe), side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling.

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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, it could be more front-loaded by starting with the action (e.g., 'Create a recipe from raw HTML or a JSON object') and the phrase 'Takes in' 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?

Given the tool has five parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return value format, success/error scenarios, or any prerequisites.

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%. The description partially explains the 'data' parameter (raw HTML or JSON), but does not clarify the optional parameters such as 'url', 'includeTags', 'accept-language', and 'includeCategories'. No default values or behavior are mentioned.

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 accepts raw HTML or a schema.org Recipe JSON string and parses it 'like a URL.' The verb 'parses' and the mention of input types distinguish it from siblings like create_recipes_create_url (for URLs) and create_recipes_create_html_or_json_stream (streaming version). However, the phrase 'like a URL' is vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_recipes_create_url or create_recipes_create_html_or_json_stream. The description only states what it does, without specifying when it is appropriate or not.

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