bar_search_ingredients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does explain the filtering behavior of the three flags concretely. It stops short of disclosing matching semantics (case sensitivity, substring vs prefix), result ordering, or how limit behaves, which are the behavioral traits an agent still needs.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by scannable bullets, with no filler. Each flag line adds distinct, actionable meaning and the combination tip is a genuine value-add rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description adequately covers the non-obvious boolean filters for a 5-parameter search tool. Only the limit parameter and query-matching behavior remain unaddressed, a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it defines specific_only, missing_image_only, and exclude_commodities precisely, and the opening sentence implies query semantics. The limit parameter is entirely undocumented and matching behavior for query is unspecified, keeping it short of a 5.

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 verb and resource ("Search for ingredients by name"), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like bar_list_ingredients, bar_get_ingredient, or bar_search_cocktails, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 bullet list gives clear context for when each flag matters ("handy for cleanup work") and even recommends a combination for finding bottles needing artwork. But it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over bar_list_ingredients or bar_get_ingredient, so tool-level selection is left implicit.

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