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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds what comes back: published/tested recipes, including near-matches with the single missing tool named — a real behavioral detail beyond the annotations. However, ordering, result limits, and what happens if no recipes match are not disclosed.

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, trigger first, return semantics second — properly front-loaded with no filler. The phrase 'those that need just one more (named)' takes a moment to parse but is efficient once read.

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 has to carry return-value burden, and it does so only at a summary level (published/tested recipes plus one-tool-away matches). It does not explain how role or difficulty narrow results or how many recipes are typically returned, leaving gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 only 33% — only 'tools' is documented in the schema — and the description reinforces that parameter ('recipes that use only their tools'). The 'role' and 'difficulty' parameters are never mentioned in the description, though both are enums (sdr/ae/cs/leader/revops/marketing; beginner/intermediate/advanced) whose values are largely self-explanatory. Partial compensation, not full.

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 ('find') and resource ('published, tested recipes') plus the matching criterion (recipes that use the user's tools). It implicitly separates itself from the singular 'get_recipe'/'get_recipe_template' siblings by describing a discovery/search result set, 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?

The opening clause gives a clear trigger: 'Use when someone asks for ready-made AI workflows, playbooks or automations for their sales tools.' That is a concrete when-to-use condition. It stops short of stating exclusions or pointing to compare_tools / get_recipe_template for adjacent needs.

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