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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them: it discloses that the target is a public-facing gallery, imposes an ownership restriction, and clarifies the run-recipe scoping rule — real behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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, action front-loaded before the constraint clause, with no filler. The em-dash aside and parenthetical are dense but each adds a needed clarification rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description supplies the ownership, visibility, and scoping constraints an agent needs to call it correctly; little is missing.

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 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does: `listed: false` is explained as the removal switch (implying the default is listing), and generation_id's scope is constrained to a ready generation made with the recipe it ran. Only format/default details are left to the schema.

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 names a specific action and resource — listing a generation on its recipe's public gallery — and even glosses the concept ('the examples a reader sees under the recipe'). It is easy to distinguish from generic generation tools, though it never explicitly contrasts with close siblings like publish_recipe or save_recipe_from_generation.

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 both directions of use explicitly (add by default, remove with `listed: false`) and enumerates the preconditions for use: only the owning account, only on the recipe the generation ran on, and the special rule for run recipes. There is no exclusion against alternatives, but the usage conditions are unusually clear.

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