search_my_recipes

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description reveals non-obvious behavior: it searches only EYB's indexed keyword candidates, dish mode can include served-with dishes, and results may suffer from truncation or missing metadata. These are exactly the behavioral caveats an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

Three dense sentences with the primary scope front-loaded. Each sentence adds a distinct necessary fact: scope, mode behavior, and search/caveat limitations. No filler or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description does not specify return shape, yet it equips an agent with mode semantics, indexing constraints, and a truncation warning so it can validate results. It is slightly terse about pagination parameters and metadata caveats, but sufficient for a read-only search tool.

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 the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the mode values and implies the query uses EYB-indexed candidates, but limit and max_pages are left to their names and defaults, so compensation is strong yet not complete.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Find recipe references only in cookbooks on the user's shelf,' which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling list_cookbooks. It also names each mode and what it checks, making the tool's scope concrete.

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 gives clear operational context by explaining what each mode searches and warning about indexed-keyword limitations. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over list_cookbooks or provide a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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