List the taxonomies recipes are browsed by

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that, especially that omitting facet triggers eight underlying requests, one per taxonomy. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose in the first sentence, followed by a compact list of taxonomies and then actionable usage guidance. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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?

The tool has a single optional parameter, a comprehensive schema, an output schema, and annotations covering safety and world behavior. The description fills the remaining practical gaps: how to call it, why to call it before browse_recipes, and the request-cost implication of omitting the facet parameter.

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 already documents the facet parameter and its allowed values, so the baseline is 3. The description adds human-readable meanings for each taxonomy and the important distinction that passing facet returns one taxonomy while omitting it fetches all eight, with a note about request cost.

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 a specific operation: listing the taxonomic values the site uses to browse recipes. It also names all eight taxonomies and ties itself to browse_recipes, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like get_recipe or search_recipes.

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 explicitly directs when to call this tool: 'Call this before browse_recipes rather than spelling a value yourself.' This gives a clear use case and a reason to prefer it over hard-codng values, and the optional facet parameter behavior is fully explained.

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