Search Recipes

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-service profile is covered. The description adds only a small amount beyond that: it confirms results are IDs to be reused in get_recipe_details. It says nothing about rate limits, empty results, or authentication, which is acceptable given annotation coverage but not rich.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence earns its place by describing the follow-up workflow.

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?

With an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description needn't explain return values or parameters, and it covers purpose and workflow adequately. It stops short of mentioning prerequisites such as connection to Cookidoo or behavior when no recipes match, leaving minor gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents query, ingredients, max_results, and max_total_time in detail. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Cookidoo recipe catalogue.' It does not explain how this differs from siblings like list_custom_recipes, so the sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit, keeping it at 4.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use context — 'find inspiration or recipes based on what is in the fridge' — and tells the agent what to do with the results ('pass the returned IDs to get_recipe_details'). It doesn't say when not to use this tool or name an alternative such as listing custom recipes, so it falls short of 5.

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