search_recipes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that query matches against name, description, and ingredients, that categories and tags filter by slugs, and that pagination uses page and per_page defaults. This gives an agent a clear model of the tool's matching and filtering behavior without hiding important operational details.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a concise parameter list. There is no fluff or redundant restating of the tool name. Each line earns its place and an agent can scan the description quickly.

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 read-only search tool with five optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers all invocation-relevant semantics: search scope, filter behavior, pagination defaults, and parameter roles. Since an output schema exists, not detailing the return shape is acceptable. No critical operational detail needed to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: query is described as search text over name, description, and ingredients; categories and tags are explained as filters by slug; page and per_page are given their pagination roles. Every parameter gains meaning beyond the bare schema fields and defaults.

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 recipes by keyword with optional category/tag filters', which states a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling retrieval tools like get_recipe by emphasizing keyword search rather than direct lookup. The filter behavior is stated up front, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it: when you need to search recipes by keyword and optionally filter by categories or tags. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with get_recipe, search_foods, or other sibling tools, nor does it specify when not to use it. The usage context is present but relies on inference.

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