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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Return') and lists three output categories, but it does not disclose what happens when all six optional parameters are null — whether the tool returns everything, errors, or requires at least one filter. No side-effect, authorization, pagination, or rate-limit context is mentioned.

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 10-word sentence with no filler, tautology, or redundant restatement of the tool name. The verb and primary resource are front-loaded. Every word earns its place, although the brevity sacrifices semantic richness — which is accounted for 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 output schema exists, so return-value shape is covered, but the description leaves major operational gaps: six undocumented filter parameters, no usage conditions, and no behavior for empty invocation. For a tool in a 70-member family sharing the recipes_ prefix, this is insufficient for reliable selection and correct invocation.

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%, and the description never references any of the six parameters. Parameter names hint at roles (model_id, provider_id, route_id), but decision and risk_tier are ambiguous, and no statement links any parameter to the returned categories (route profiles, workflow mappings, evidence). With zero schema coverage, the description was obligated to compensate for the parameters and did not.

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 specific verb ('Return') and names concrete resources: model-provider route profiles, workflow mappings, and required evidence. The model-provider routing domain distinguishes it from the ~70 sibling recipes_* tools, which are mostly agentic, MCP, or secure-context focused. However, 'required evidence' and 'workflow mappings' are not precisely scoped, and no explicit contrast with siblings is offered.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a sibling list of ~70 similarly prefixed recipes_* tools, there is no stated selection criterion, no exclusions, and no indication of whether this pack should be consulted before or after related packs like recipes_secure_context_evidence_contract or recipes_workflow_control_plane. The intended usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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