Read one taxonomy's recipes

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: hand-built slugs return a page the taxonomy does not hold, 'page_served' must be trusted over the requested page, 'has_more' drives pagination, and 'total_available' is always null. This goes well beyond the annotations and significantly improves call correctness.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then each subsequent sentence adds a distinct, useful caveat or behavior. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary call-related quirks: how to source valid slugs, what to trust in the response, why a count is missing, and the impossibility of combining taxonomies. The agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'value' must be a slug from list_facets and adds the caveat that made-up slugs receive an unexpected page, which adds meaning beyond the schema's simple examples. It does not add new information about the 'page' parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with 'Browse the recipes a taxonomy holds, one page at a time,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly conveys the paginated browsing scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_recipes or get_recipe, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives clear operational context: 'value' must come from list_facets, the site writes its own slugs, and taxonomies cannot be combined. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over its siblings, but the browsing-oriented language and pagination details imply the intended use case.

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