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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait not in the structured data: results are sorted newest-first, which affects how an agent consumes the output. It does not mention total counts or empty-result behavior, but that gap is minor for a read-only list.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the same content is stated twice in Norwegian and English, which is redundant unless the duplication is deliberate for locale routing. No wasted explanation beyond that.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering and pagination adequately. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both page and limit documented including the default of 20 and max of 100. The description only alludes to pagination ("med sidevisning") without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 brukerens oppskrifter" / "List the user's recipes") plus the ordering, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not name or contrast with the closest sibling, search_recipes, leaving that distinction to inference.

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 only implied: a listing tool with pagination versus search_recipes' filtering is a natural inference, but the description never says when to prefer this over search_recipes or get_recipe. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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