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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing that output omits recipe bodies, which prevents an agent from expecting full definitions from this call.

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 tight sentences with zero waste: the first states the deliverable and its boundary, the second routes to the detail tool. Front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies the one missing piece — the list/detail split — though it says nothing about result ordering or size limits, a minor gap for a no-param lister.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing parameter-related, which is appropriate since there is nothing to document beyond the empty schema.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (presets), and it enumerates the returned fields (names, schedules, links) while explicitly excluding recipe bodies. This scope statement cleanly separates it from the sibling get_preset.

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?

It names the alternative explicitly — get_preset(id) — and states the condition that selects it: only when full steps or customization are needed. Nothing about the list-vs-detail choice is left to inference.

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