Search the recipes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the one-page limit, the null total_available, the ordering not being relevance-based, and the possibility of collection rows. However, it does not fully elaborate on the output schema, but the output schema exists, reducing the burden.

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 dense but well-organized: it front-loads the core search behavior, then explains edge cases (ordering, collections) and alternatives. Every sentence adds information, though a few could be tighter. The length is justified by the complexity of the site's behavior.

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 site's unusual behavior (no pagination, null total, non-relevance ordering, collection items), the description covers these critical quirks thoroughly. It also redirects to sibling tools for filtering. The output schema exists, so return value details are covered elsewhere. Minor gap: no explicit mention of error cases, but overall complete for confident invocation.

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 both parameters are already described in the schema. The description reinforces query semantics (Spanish, dish/ingredient/technique) and explains the effect of limit in the context of the site's ordering. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema fields, justifying a score above baseline.

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 Pequerecetas for a dish or ingredient in Spanish, and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recipe, list_facets, and browse_recipes. The verb 'search' plus the target resource and language specificity make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use this tool vs alternatives: it notes that search takes no filters and recommends list_facets and browse_recipes for narrowing by diet, ingredient, technique, or age. It also clarifies the lack of pagination and result counting, which guides proper invocation.

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