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

Annotations already declare it is a read-only, closed-world operation; the description adds sort order (fewest recipes first), the exclusion rule for member-authored recipes, and the threshold semantics behind the data. It does not mention result size limits or truncation behavior, but that is a minor gap given annotations handle the safety profile.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition, then scope, then the motivating use case. The parentheticals earn their place by carrying the threshold rule and the exclusion rationale, though the sentence is dense enough to require careful reading.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so well: counts, platforms, and profile links are all named. The single optional parameter, sort order, and exclusion rule are covered, so nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool 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 single parameter max_recipes is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the omit-for-all behavior. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the implicit tie between 'fewest recipes first' and the filter, so 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?

Names a specific resource (video creators) with a precise scope (at least one public recipe) and enumerates exactly what is returned: recipe counts, source platforms, and channel/profile links. No sibling tool covers creators, so an agent can immediately tell this apart from search_recipes or list_meal_plans.

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 use case -- finding creator pages that need more recipes, with the explicit threshold of 3 to become a search landing page -- and states an exclusion (member-written recipes are never included, since their authors have no creator page). It lacks an explicit 'do not use this when...' route to a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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