APIbase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the return payload ('full nutrition breakdown, dietary labels, and caloric distribution') which compensates for the missing output schema. However, it omits operational details like rate limits, authentication requirements, or behavior with invalid ingredient formats.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the action ('Analyze a recipe'), specifies inputs, lists outputs, and attributes the source ('Spoonacular'). Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with 4 simple parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the essential inputs and outputs. A perfect score would require acknowledging the optional parameters (instructions, servings) or error behaviors, but given the rich schema coverage, this is sufficient.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description references 'title and ingredient list', reinforcing the required parameters, but does not add semantic context beyond the schema (e.g., explaining that instructions and servings are optional modifiers that improve analysis accuracy).

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 provides a specific verb ('Analyze'), resource ('recipe'), and input method ('by title and ingredient list'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'spoonacular.recipes.search' (which finds existing recipes) by emphasizing that you provide your own recipe components to analyze.

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?

While the phrase 'by title and ingredient list' implies this is for analyzing user-provided recipes rather than searching a database, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like 'by_ingredients' or 'details'. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.

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