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

Annotations already establish read-only behavior. The description adds that the tool returns prompts (not executed workflows), which is a key behavioral distinction beyond the annotation. It also discloses the menu-vs-recipe behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentence that packs in the free status, purpose, examples, and invocation logic. Every piece of information is necessary and front-loaded; no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the tool's function, usage, and return behavior ('prompt') sufficiently. It could add more detail about the prompt content format, but given the low complexity and read-only annotation, this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema description ('Recipe id; omit for menu.') already fully explains the parameter. The description's 'recipe='<id>' → prompt' reiterates the same information without adding new semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool provides multi-tool workflow prompts with concrete examples (clone a site, SEO audit), and specifies exact invocation behavior ('No args → menu; recipe='<id>' → prompt'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like use_tool or tool_catalog by focusing on recipe-driven multi-step workflows.

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?

The description gives clear context for use: it is for multi-tool workflow prompts, and the invocation patterns (no args for menu, recipe id for prompt) are explicit. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., 'use use_tool for single-tool commands'), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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