brewfather_search_recipes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does state 'Read-only' and that pagination is local and 'can use several API calls,' which is a useful heads-up about possible latency/cost. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on pagination (does it auto-fetch all pages? does it cap?), any rate limits, or error behavior. It's above minimal but lacks rich detail.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence front-loads the action and searchable facets, the second adds critical behavioral notes (read-only, pagination). Every word earns its place; it is appropriately terse.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description doesn't describe the return shape (what a result contains, ordering, total hits). It mentions pagination but doesn't specify how many results per page or how 'maxPages' affects the response. An agent inferring from the schema knows only that three numeric constraints exist. For a search tool, this lacks important operational details like result format and pagination semantics, so it is incomplete for safe invocation.

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 has zero descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must explain the parameters. It lists the search fields (name, author, type, style, equipment) but does not clarify how they map to the single 'query' parameter—is it a free-text search across those fields or a structured filter object? 'limit' and 'maxPages' are self-evident from names and numeric bounds, but the description adds no guidance on how they interact or what values are sensible. The description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 ('search') and resource ('Brewfather recipes') and enumerates searchable attributes (name, author, type, style, equipment). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_recipes (which likely returns all recipes) and get_recipe (which fetches by ID). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it's not a top score, but the purpose is 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling list_recipes or get_recipe. The description implies filtering is the use case ('by name, author...'), but it never says 'use this when you need to filter' or contrasts it with listing all recipes. Without that, an agent could pick the wrong tool for a straightforward list request. No when-not or alternatives are mentioned.

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