Find a recipe in the other languages it was published in

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful nuanced behavior: the translation pairing is site-defined and repeated rather than title-matched, the count varies by recipe, and an empty list still means the read succeeded. This goes well beyond the annotation hints.

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 core purpose and is not padded. A few repeated details from the schema and the illustrative language examples add length, but each sentence contributes useful operational or interpretive context for an agent.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete: it explains when to use this tool instead of get_recipe, how to source the id, what the result represents, how size varies, and how to interpret an empty list.

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%, and the schema already explains that 'id' is 'The id of a row from a search or a listing, which is the recipe's own page path.' The description repeats this same guidance without adding substantial new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description names a specific verb and resource: 'List the other languages a Ptitchef recipe was published in, with the page of each.' It explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_recipe, which already contains this list, so an agent can immediately distinguish this tool from the main recipe-fetching tool.

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 a clear when-to-use rule: call this only when the rest of the recipe is not wanted, because get_recipe already carries the translations list. It also tells the agent exactly what input to pass: the 'id' of a row from a search or listing.

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