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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-open-world behavior. The description adds valuable beyond-schema context: the call is free (no credits), recipes never carry topic/hook/media, and settings from a recipe are overridden by explicit arguments. That is substantive behavioral guidance rather than restatement.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by usage and caveats in a logical order. The parenthetical list of settings is lengthy but earns its place by clarifying what a recipe contains; overall the text is tight with only minor redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present and zero parameters, the description does not need to explain return shape or inputs. It still covers what the tool returns (recipes with formats and settings), how to use the result, cost, and limitations, leaving nothing essential for correct invocation missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to document inputs, and its enumeration of recipe fields is extra context rather than a schema substitute.

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 ('List') and resource ('Studio recipes'), and defines what a recipe is (named format plus settings). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling studio_formats tool, leaving a possible ambiguity, but the purpose is otherwise unmistakable.

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?

Gives clear context: use it to find a recipe id, then pass that id as recipeId to studio_generate, with explicit precedence ('anything you pass yourself wins'). It also clarifies what a recipe never holds, so the agent knows to still supply prompt/hook/mediaIds. No explicit when-not or comparison to studio_formats, hence not a 5.

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