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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The terms 'summarize' and 'list' imply a read-only reporting operation, but the description does not disclose what 'world-class signals' are, whether any filtering or aggregation occurs, what the output structure is, or whether there are side effects. This is only a minimal indication of 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?

The description is a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler or repetition, and the primary verb is front-loaded. It is concise, though it could be structured to also reveal the key parameters or usage context without bloating the length.

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?

Given the moderate complexity of three optional parameters, zero annotation coverage, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse to be complete. An agent is left to guess what 'tier', 'facet', and 'limit' mean and how to invoke the tool correctly. The presence of an output schema helps, but it does not address the missing parameter and usage context.

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 makes no mention of the three parameters: tier, facet, and limit. With no parameter descriptions in the schema and no compensation in the tool description, an agent has no idea what values these parameters accept or how they affect the report.

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 states a clear action and resource: 'Summarize recipe quality tiers and list recipes missing world-class signals.' The verb and resource are specific enough to convey the tool's core purpose, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as recipes_get, recipes_list, or recipes_search, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, and no exclusions or routing hints are mentioned. The sibling list contains many potentially overlapping recipe-related tools, yet the description gives no context for selecting this one.

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