APIbase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and succeeds by disclosing key behavioral traits: it reveals that results include 'used/missing ingredients count' and are 'ranked by ingredient match.' This gives the agent insight into the response structure and sorting logic that would otherwise be unknown without an output schema.

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?

Single sentence that is perfectly front-loaded with the action ('Find recipes'), followed by the unique value proposition, and ending with source attribution (Spoonacular). No filler words or redundant phrases. The em-dash efficiently separates the function from the output characteristics.

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 4-parameter tool with simple types and no nested objects, the description is appropriately complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by describing what the results contain (used/missing counts, ranking). Could improve by mentioning rate limits or authentication requirements, but sufficient for the complexity level.

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% with detailed descriptions for all 4 parameters (ingredients format, ranking modes 1 vs 2, ignore_pantry behavior). The description doesn't need to repeat this information but doesn't add semantic context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score appropriate given schema completeness.

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?

Description clearly states the specific action (Find recipes), the unique constraint (using ingredients you have on hand), and distinguishes from sibling tools like spoonacular.recipes.search by emphasizing the ingredient-based matching functionality. The mention of 'ranked by ingredient match' and 'used/missing ingredients count' precisely defines the tool's specific value proposition.

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 the use case ('ingredients you have on hand'), providing implicit context for when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or mentions of alternatives like spoonacular.recipes.search for general keyword-based recipe discovery. No explicit prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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