Bot Recipes

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

Despite zero annotations, it discloses the operation is free, is a read ('Get'), requires an email credential with three accepted delivery mechanisms, and returns the full recipe plus a next_step tool. The main remaining gap is that it never states what happens if the id is stale or the email is rejected, but the auth and return behavior are well covered.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose and id source first, then the auth requirement, then the return value. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical '(free)' and the header/query-string enumeration make it slightly denser than strictly necessary.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain returns and constraints — which it does by naming the returned payload and the next_step affordance and by detailing the email requirement. What's missing is failure-mode context for an invalid id or missing email, which would round out a tool whose structured metadata is otherwise empty.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does add real meaning: it tells the agent that `id` must be obtained from search_recipes and enumerates three distinct channels for `email` (param, query string, header), which the 50%-covered schema does not. The guidance to use the human's email with consent gives the value semantics the schema lacks.

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 (get) plus resource (one full recipe) plus the scoping qualifier 'by id from search_recipes', which both explains where the id comes from and separates it from the sibling list/search tools. The '(free)' tag adds a useful differentiator an agent can't derive from the name alone.

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 states the retrieval context (single recipe by id, with ids sourced from search_recipes) and gives explicit alternatives for supplying the email. It stops short of an explicit 'use search_recipes first to find the id' instruction or a when-not-to-use condition, but the implied workflow is unambiguous.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses data provenance ('seeded from the official MCP Registry, moderated'), which is useful context, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether auth is required, rate limits, pagination, or return 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 one tight sentence with a parenthetical, front-loading the action and directory before listing the optional filters. Every part earns its place with no filler.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return values, pagination, and operational behavior. It covers purpose and filter names but leaves these invocation-critical details unstated, so it is not complete enough for an agent to call confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It names all three filters and the kind enum values, but adds no meaning for 'query' or 'category' beyond their names, leaving the 0% coverage largely unaddressed.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('MCP servers and bots in the botrecipe.com directory') with scope and provenance. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_recipes, buy_pack, or get_recipe, so it falls 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?

It mentions optional filters but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites exist. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling comparison, matching a score of 2 (no real guidance).

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return fields (id, title, summary, url, next_step), but says nothing about ranking, pagination, or the cap on results despite limit being capped at 25.

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 scale of the corpus and the return shape are front-loaded before any detail.

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 no output schema, the description does the right thing by enumerating return fields, and search is self-evidently a read operation. It is still incomplete on result count behavior, pagination, and how 'limit' interacts with the query.

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 only 50%: 'query' has 'words to match' but 'limit' has no description at all. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented limit parameter.

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 ('Search') and resource ('473 free bot recipes') plus the content shape (steps, prompt, what to watch). This distinguishes it from the singular get_recipe and from list_directory, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_recipe for direct lookup. The agent must infer that 'search' means keyword discovery when the id is unknown.

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