search_mathem_ingredients

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('search') but doesn't describe traits like whether it's read-only, rate-limited, authentication requirements, or what the search scope includes (e.g., partial matches, case sensitivity). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('search for ingredients') and efficiently includes the context ('on Mathem.se grocery store'). Every part of the description earns its place.

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 has 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists (which should cover return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage, behavior, and parameter specifics. For a search tool, more context on search behavior or results would be helpful, but the output schema mitigates some gaps.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description mentions 'search for ingredients' which implies the 'query' parameter is for ingredient names, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format, examples, or constraints, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 the verb ('search') and resource ('ingredients on Mathem.se grocery store'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_recipes' or 'get_recipe_by_index' which might also involve ingredient-related operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'search_mathem_ingredients' instead of sibling tools like 'add_to_mathem_basket' or 'list_recipes', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for its use.

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