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 description only needs to add what they don't. It does: results are ordered newest first, and it discloses a domain-specific behavior — recipes without a stated firing are treated as having none and won't match firing filters. Return/pagination behavior is not described.

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, front-loaded with what is listed before the filter and ordering details. The second sentence (stated-firing semantics) earns its place, but the first is dense and clause-heavy, making it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.

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 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no required params, the description covers filtering and ordering but not the returned record shape (only noting each result lists its stated firing) or how limit/offset paginate. Adequate for calling the tool, but the lack of an output schema leaves return-value expectations under-specified.

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 86%, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: the search parameter (which has no schema description at all) matches a recipe's title or a material, and it frames cone/atmosphere/process as matching 'stated' firing metadata. This is more than restating the schema, though it doesn't expand on scale/pagination params already documented.

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 (lists) and resource (glaze recipes in your Glazecalc account) with scope details: newest first, and the three filter axes (search text, stated firing/cone, atmosphere/process). This clearly separates it from singular siblings like get_recipe and from list_my_materials/list_firings/list_notes.

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 a concrete motivating query ("which of my glazes fire at cone 10 reduction?") that shows when to reach for this tool and how the filters combine. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., get_recipe for a single recipe) or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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