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 real behavioral context beyond that: the listing is restricted to stacks with passing, version-pinned recipes (i.e., not an exhaustive catalog), and it includes recipe counts. It does not discuss completeness limits or ordering, so it falls just short of 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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the trigger condition, then the output content, then the follow-up action. No filler or restatement of the title; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

No parameters and no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden — and it does, describing the returned entity (libraries/frameworks with passing recipes) and the accompanying recipe counts. Nothing needed 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?

The schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description's remark about using result names as the stack filter applies to a sibling's parameter, which is helpful context but not a parameter of this tool.

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: it 'lists the libraries and frameworks that currently have passing, version-pinned recipes, with recipe counts.' The qualifier 'passing, version-pinned' distinguishes its scope from a generic catalog, and it is clearly separable from search_recipes and get_recipe.

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 two explicit trigger conditions — when the user names a library and coverage is uncertain, and after search_recipes returns nothing — plus the downstream follow-up (use the returned names as the stack filter in search_recipes). This is when-to-use and how-to-continue in one place.

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