Search the public catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of context not in the structured data: the public/unauthenticated access model and the returned fields (ids, names, descriptions, URLs). It does not cover pagination or result-count behavior.

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, zero filler. The purpose and scope lead, and the access/return information follows compactly.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations carry the safety profile, so what remains (purpose, scope, auth model, catalog mapping) is covered. Minor gap: no mention of how limit/pagination behaves or how empty-query results are ordered, though the schema notes the latter.

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 coverage is 67%, so baseline is 3, and the description goes slightly beyond it: the four catalog content types named map onto the environment enum values (kitchen, laboratory, event, gym), clarifying what each enum branch actually searches. It still doesn't explain limit bounds, which the schema carries.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (public catalog of recipes, lab protocols, event templates, workouts) with the matching scope (by name or keyword). An agent can distinguish this from load_public_recipe (loads one item) and list_public_runs (different resource) without opening a schema.

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 account needed' tells the agent this is usable pre-authentication, which is genuinely useful routing context versus login-gated siblings. However, it never states when to use this search versus load_public_recipe or the list_* tools, so the when-to-use guidance remains implied.

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