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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a read-like operation, but it does not disclose side effects, authentication or authorization requirements, how the four optional inputs affect behavior, or what 'evidence' includes.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the key noun phrases are listed up front. It is appropriately short, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing parameter and usage detail covered in other dimensions.

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 presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the description remains incomplete for a four-optional-parameter tool amid dozens of similar recipe_pack siblings. It lacks any explanation of input semantics, filtering behavior, or when the pack applies.

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 0% for four parameters, so the description must compensate. It does not mention decision, risk_tier, workflow_id, or action_class_id at all or explain how they influence the returned data. Parameter names hint at filters, but no semantics are added.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Return') and identifies specific resources: action classes, workflow action envelopes, runtime policy, and evidence. This makes the basic purpose clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with the many sibling recipe_pack tools.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this pack versus alternatives such as recipes_agentic_run_receipt_pack or recipes_workflow_control_plane. The context implies a runtime/action retrieval use case, but neither exclusions nor selection criteria are stated.

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