search_ingredients

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint) and scope (openWorldHint), lowering the bar. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: fuzzy typo-tolerant multi-token matching, ranked ordering, default/max page size, truncation signaling, and offset-based paging. It stops short of describing ranking/scoring mechanics or tie-breaking behavior.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler: the matching behavior and return shape come first, paging mechanics second. 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 read-only paged search with a fully-described schema and no output schema, the description covers matching semantics, ranking, return shape keys, truncation, and paging. The only gaps are the unmentioned salable filter and sibling differentiation; otherwise it gives an agent what it needs to call correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, query, offset, and salable. The description restates page size and offset usage but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema and omits the salable filter entirely. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (ingredients) with the exact matching fields (name/itemNumber) and matching semantics (fuzzy, typo-tolerant, multi-token). It is clearly distinguishable from list_ingredients (enumeration) and get_ingredient (single fetch) among its siblings.

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 exploration/retrieval usage and explains paging mechanics, but never explicitly states when to use this vs list_ingredients or get_ingredient. No when-not guidance or alternative routing is provided, leaving the agent to infer from names.

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