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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: results are finite/bounded to the workspace and current grant, and the page-ending semantics (null cursor means final page) are disclosed. It stops short of describing ordering, page size, or what an empty list means, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, no filler, with the scope constraint front-loaded ahead of the paging instruction. Every clause carries information the agent needs, and nothing repeats the schema or annotations verbatim.

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?

Output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and for a two-parameter paginated list tool the description covers scope, exclusions, and termination. The main residual gap is the absent guidance on ordering or how this differs from the sibling recipe-listing tools.

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 only 50% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining that the cursor drives subsequent pages and terminates on null, plus that scoping follows the selected workspace and current grant. Minor friction: it references "next_cursor" while the actual parameter is named "cursor", a naming mismatch that could briefly confuse an agent.

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 finite native recipes") scoped to "this selected workspace and current grant", which tells an agent exactly what is being enumerated. It does not name or distinguish itself from near siblings such as native.recipe_list or get_recurring_schedule, so the agent still has to infer which of several recipe-listing surfaces applies.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before running a recipe, and the clause "never accept an arbitrary internal tool or skill ID as a recipe" is a useful negative constraint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus native.recipe_list, native.recipe_read, or the recurring-schedule tools, and no prerequisites are spelled out.

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