Search recipes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds valuable context about the one-page result and robots.txt restriction, plus the return of ids and URLs, enriching the behavioral picture beyond the 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 and well-structured, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: purpose, examples, result guidance, and pagination constraint. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: search intent, language considerations, result format, and pagination constraints. It is complete for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 schema fully describes both parameters, but the description enriches the query parameter with examples and language guidance (e.g., French terms work best). It also clarifies the limit's role by explaining the lack of pagination, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool searches recipes on Marmiton by free text with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning it returns IDs and URLs used by get_recipe, making its role as the search entry point explicit.

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 context that Marmiton is a French site and advises using French terms. It explicitly explains the single-page limitation and advises narrowing queries instead of expecting pagination, effectively covering when and how to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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