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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping detail that only the authenticated user's own saved recipes are returned, but says nothing about how many are returned by default or how the limit caps the result.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the tool's core purpose is stated before the usage hint. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description only needs to establish purpose and when to reach for it, which it does. The one gap is result-size behavior, which matters for a list tool with a capped limit.

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 the single parameter, limit, so the description carries the burden of explaining it and does not. It never mentions the default page size, whether results are truncated, or that 100 is the ceiling, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the raw bounds alone.

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 and resource ("List ... saved Sous Chef recipes") and scopes it to the authenticated user, which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from get_recipe or display_recipe. It does not explicitly name a sibling, which keeps it short of 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?

Gives an explicit trigger: use it before editing when the user refers to a recipe by name rather than id. It leaves the inverse case (call get_recipe when an id is already known) implicit rather than stated as an exclusion.

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