Search the Cookbook

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

Given annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable context beyond those: full-text search can return reference pages, rows may merely name a dish, total_available is null with no pagination, and notes indicate when titles don't match. This helps the agent interpret results accurately.

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 lengthy but every sentence conveys a distinct constraint or behavioral quirk. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then explains search modes, then result interpretation nuances. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description doesn't need to list all return fields, but it explains key output nuances (id, total_available, notes) that the schema likely doesn't cover. It addresses pagination absence, reference-page mixing, and the relationship with get_recipe, making it complete for an agent to decide when to call the tool and how to interpret results.

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 describes query and search, and the description enriches both: query is explained as a dish name or ingredient, and search is elaborated with examples of why 'text' is needed to find by ingredient while 'title' is exact but misses differently-named dishes. Limit is not mentioned in the description, but its schema constraints and default are self-explanatory; the advice to narrow the query compensates.

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 opens with 'Search the Wikibooks Cookbook for a recipe, by dish name or by an ingredient it uses.' This identifies a specific verb and resource, and differentiates the tool from siblings like get_recipe (which retrieves by id) and list_recipes (presumably listing all recipes). It also clearly states the two search modes.

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 explains when to use text vs title search, and explicitly advises narrowing the query instead of requesting more results. It also notes that only get_recipe can confirm whether a page carries an ingredient list, steering the agent to that tool when needed. It does not directly compare with list_recipes or scale_ingredients, but the search purpose is clear enough.

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