Search Recipes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does so well for a read operation, disclosing the authentication prerequisite and what a result contains (names, IDs, links). It stops short of disclosing pagination limits or rate-limit behavior, which is why it isn't a 5.

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?

Under five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return shape, then sibling routing, then the auth prerequisite. No sentence is redundant or self-evident.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be fully explained, yet the description still previews the key fields. Combined with the explicit auth prerequisite and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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 coverage is 100% and all nine parameters are individually documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no query-syntax or filtering semantics beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Search the Cookidoo recipe catalogue") with immediate scoping: the catalogue excludes the user's own recipes. The agent can distinguish it from get_recipe_details and list_my_recipes without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing for every adjacent need: get_recipe_details with an ID for ingredients/steps, plan_recipe for the week plan, list_my_recipes for personal recipes. It also names the prerequisite ("You must be connected first using connect_to_cookidoo"), so an agent knows the ordering constraint.

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