search_recipes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'read-only' in the description is redundant. The only added behavior is that results come back as a sorted hit list, but pagination behavior is unstated — notably that 'seite' pages over a client-side sorted result set, which materially affects how an agent should page.

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 definition is short and front-loaded, but it says the same thing twice in German and English, and 'read-only' merely repeats the annotations. Roughly half the text is redundant rather than additive.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description says nothing about result shape, per-recipe fields, or how pagination interacts with sorting. It is adequate to know the tool's purpose but thin for correct invocation across the full parameter set.

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 description coverage is 100%, including enum values and defaults, so the schema carries the parameter burden and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning such as filter interaction (vegan implies vegetarisch), sort stability, or typical query phrasing beyond the generic 'mit Filtern'.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource plus the source site ('Sucht Rezepte auf Chefkoch.de ... sortierte Trefferliste'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It stops short of naming the natural alternative get_recipe for fetching a single recipe's details.

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?

Searching 'with filters' implies when the tool applies, and the phrase 'read-only' signals a safe lookup. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no pointer to get_recipe for details, and no explanation of how the filter set should be combined.

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