Get Rakuten Recipe Category Ranking

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds value by listing the specific return fields (title, ingredient list, cooking time, etc.) and noting it returns a direct URL. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise with two sentences (plus Japanese translation), front-loading the core action. Every sentence serves a purpose with no wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's behavior and return fields. It covers prerequisite knowledge and is complete for a simple single-parameter ranking 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, describing 'categoryId' and referencing 'recipe_category_list'. The tool description reiterates this but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'top recipes in a Rakuten Recipe category'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by domain and explicitly references 'recipe_category_list' for category IDs, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear guidance on a prerequisite: using 'recipe_category_list' to find category IDs. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives, the simple nature of the tool and the single sibling in the same domain make this adequate.

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