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

Using the helpful readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations as a baseline, the description adds valuable context: cards 'appear only if you call this,' preserving the client-side visual behavior, and that order is kept. It discloses that the tool is the actual access mechanism for recipes. This goes beyond bare annotations without over-explaining.

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?

The description leads with the core behavior, then explains the context, and ends with an actionable ordering rule. Each sentence earns its place and avoids redundancy. It is compact yet complete for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

The tool has one straightforward parameter, no output schema needed, and annotations document read safety and idempotency. The description fully covers what to do, when to do it, and how the result behaves. For this simple card-rendering tool, there are no important missing context gaps.

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 input schema already covers the parameter fully: type, constraints, format, and order semantics are all described. The description repeats the 'put the strongest recommendation first' ordering guidance but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema's high coverage. Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool's action ("Draw recipes as picture cards") and distinguishes it from sibling search/find tools by specifying that it displays already-held recipe URLs. The phrase "the cards are how a person actually gets to a recipe" reinforces the display purpose. This is a specific verb+resource pairing with clear sibling differentiation.

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 description provides an explicit when-to-use trigger: 'Whenever you name recipes from this server in an answer, pass those same ones here.' It also implies, through 'URLs you are already holding,' that this is not a discovery or search tool, separating it from the siblings. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement naming alternative search tools, but the core usage context is clearly stated.

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