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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: the operation costs credits and requires checking pricing first. This goes beyond the structured annotations and provides a caution about external effects, which is useful for an agent.

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, both purposeful: the first states the core functionality, the second warns about credits. No filler, front-loaded with the primary action.

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 description covers the essential purpose and cost caveat, but lacks details about the output graph structure and the impact of tier choices. With no output schema and minimal parameter explanations, the context is adequate but not complete for a tool with these nuances.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the 'tier' parameter or the expected format of 'text'. While 'text' is reasonably inferable from 'recipe prose', 'tier' (economy/standard) remains ambiguous, leaving a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('recipe prose'), and clearly states the output ('validated rgf/0-draft operation graph'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like convert_recipe, which likely handles a different transformation.

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 a prerequisite ('fetch /v1/pricing first') and implies usage when one has recipe prose to parse, but it does not explicitly compare against convert_recipe or other siblings. This is adequate but lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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