Sugerir receitas por ingredientes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ordering logic and the fact that missing ingredients are shown. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, but the verb 'sugere' implies no side effects and no mutation. Adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the input condition and states the action and output. Every element earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description adequately explains input and output behavior. It could be more explicit about whether zero-match recipes are included and what fields are returned, but it is largely complete for typical use.

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?

The schema already describes the parameter as 'Ingredientes que voce tem em casa' with type array of strings, so coverage is 100%. The description repeats the notion of available ingredients but adds no new parameter-level details, meriting the baseline 3.

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 identifies the action ('sugere receitas') and the input (list of available ingredients), and describes the sorting behavior by match count and display of missing ingredients. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listar_receitas and adicionar_receita.

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 the situation for use: when the user has a list of ingredients and wants recipe suggestions. It does not explicitly exclude other tools or name alternatives, which prevents a 5, but the context is clear enough for a 4.

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