Search Cocktail Recipes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, which cover behavioral traits. The description's 'search' verb aligns with read-only behavior and does not contradict annotations. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. It efficiently conveys the scope (10,000+ recipes), the search methods, and the output fields without extraneous text. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the returned fields (name, category, glass type, etc.) and mentions the data source, which is sufficient given the existence of an output schema. It does not detail pagination or limits, but for a straightforward search tool with rich annotations, it is largely complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (name and ingredient). The description adds examples ('margarita', 'Vodka') but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is justified since the schema already clarifies parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the action (search), the resource (cocktail recipes), and the two modes (by name or by ingredient) with concrete examples. It also mentions the data source (TheCocktailDB) and what is returned, making it highly specific and distinguishable from siblings like recipes.cocktail.random.

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 the two search modes (name or ingredient) and gives examples, which is clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer one over the other or when not to use this tool over alternatives. The schema adds 'Use name OR ingredient, not both,' but that's not in the description. Nonetheless, the description is adequate for typical use.

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