Browse the Cookbook

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that results are 'a ranked sample and not the category itself,' not complete or ordered, and that reference pages may appear alongside recipes. These caveats are crucial for interpreting results and are not provided by the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations. 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 longer than minimal but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the purpose, then explains limitations, then usage alternatives. The structure is logical and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly tightened without losing meaning.

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 description is complete for a browse tool: it covers what it does, how to filter, what the results are (and their limitations), how to handle non-recipe rows, and when to use sibling tools. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values. The complexity of open-world ranked results is well addressed.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating 'Give at least one of the three' and 'giving several narrows the result,' clarifying the relationship between the filter parameters. It also implies that results are rows to be consumed via get_recipe. Schema coverage is 75%, so the description compensates for the undocumented 'limit' parameter by explaining the overall filtering behavior.

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's purpose: 'Browse the Wikibooks Cookbook by cuisine, by kind of dish, or by main ingredient.' It uses a specific verb ('browse') and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly guiding users to search_recipes for dish names and get_recipe for opening rows.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Give at least one of the three; giving several narrows the result.' It also specifies when to use alternatives: 'Use search_recipes instead when there is a dish name to look up' and 'Open a row with get_recipe before describing it as a recipe.' This is clear and actionable.

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