Read one category's recipes

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description reveals real behaviors: the site publishes no total, so last_page is the only listing-length indicator; rows expose difficulty, total time, and the identifier get_recipe consumes; and categories are tied to a system-provided source. This gives an agent useful expectations that annotations alone do not.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, category sourcing rule, row contents, and pagination behavior. The core action is front-loaded and the description is compact without losing necessary context.

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?

With a 100%-described schema, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description fills the remaining operational gaps: how categories are chosen, what rows look like, and how pagination terminates. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 all three parameters well, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by warning that categories are 'never assembled by hand' and clarifying what returned rows contain, though most parameter-level detail remains in 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?

States a specific action and resource: read the recipes of one Supertoinette category, page by page. It clearly differentiates from siblings by explaining that each row carries the identifier get_recipe reads, and the title contrasts category browsing with list_categories, search_recipes, and get_recipe.

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 strong operational guidance: the category must come from list_categories or a recipe's tags and must never be hand-assembled. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name the alternative for cross-category search, so it stops short of a 5.

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