search_recipes

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses non-obvious behaviors, such as the reverse lookup for `consumes` and the header counting every kind regardless of the `kind` filter. This adds valuable context beyond a basic search description.

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 compact, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and two short sentences explaining key parameters. Every sentence earns its place, and no unnecessary information is included.

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's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is only moderately complete. It covers core search behavior and some parameter quirks but does not explain output format beyond HAVE/LOCKED marking, nor does it document many parameters. There are clear gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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 description adds meaning for `consumes` and `kind`, but with 9 parameters and only 11% schema description coverage, many parameters (query, produces, limit, offset, include_events, only_alternates) remain unexplained. It partially compensates for the sparse schema but does not fully cover the parameter space.

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 this tool searches recipes by name or by consumed/produced items, which is specific and differentiates it from siblings like search_items. It also mentions a distinctive behavior ('Marks HAVE/LOCKED') that adds clarity.

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. The description explains parameter behavior but does not mention when to choose search_recipes over search_items, recipe_detail, or other siblings.

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