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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that entries carry parameters and outputs and that it is a pre-run step, but says nothing about whether the catalog is static or account-scoped, or how large it is.

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 compact sentences with the resource and the workflow cue front-loaded, and no filler whatsoever.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description covers what it returns (recipes with parameters and outputs) and when to call it. The only real omission is clarifying the list-vs-detail behavior of the `name` parameter.

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 single optional `name` parameter is already documented as "recipe name for details". The description frames the tool purely as a listing and never mentions that passing `name` narrows to one recipe's details, so it adds nothing beyond the schema here.

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 (ready-made recipes) with concrete examples (postgres, redis, sandbox) and the added promise that each entry includes parameters and outputs. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like briq_docs or briq_exec, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

"Use before briq_run" gives a clear sequencing rule that tells the agent where this fits in the workflow. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., when to use briq_docs instead), but the intended context is unambiguous.

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