search_recipes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about pagination limits, result ordering, maximum allowed limit, or whether an empty query returns everything. The existence of an output schema relieves it of describing return shape, but the call-behavior gaps remain substantial.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the resource and filters are front-loaded. It is efficient, though the compactness is part of why parameter and pagination details are missing.

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 four-parameter, zero-annotation search tool, the definition omits pagination semantics and filter-combination behavior. The output schema covers return values, but an agent still lacks enough to call this correctly with limit/offset or to know what an empty search does.

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%, so all four parameters depend on the description. It adds meaning for 'query' and 'taxonomy_ids' (including where ids come from), but 'limit' and 'offset' are entirely unaddressed, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere. This falls short of compensating for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Search Migusto recipes') plus the two filtering dimensions (text and taxonomy ids), which is enough to separate it from recipe_detail and recipe_taxonomies. It stops short of distinguishing itself from recipes_by_category and my_recipes, which also surface recipe lists.

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 parenthetical '(see recipe_taxonomies)' gives a useful workflow hint by pointing the agent at the source of taxonomy ids, and 'and/or' signals the filters are combinable. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over recipes_by_category, or on what happens with no filters at all.

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