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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive behavior, and a closed-world scope. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: it scopes results to published recipes and enumerates the returned fields, which is especially valuable since there is no output schema. It still omits ordering, rate limits, and pagination metadata details.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and scope, then compactly summarizes the output fields in a parenthetical. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple read-only list tool with two fully documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and return fields adequately. It leaves minor gaps around result ordering, pagination metadata, and sibling differentiation, but annotations and schema carry the rest.

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%, so the page and limit parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'pagination' generically but adds no syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List published recipes') with a clear scope ('published') and enumerates the returned fields. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as search_recipes or recipes_get, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of when to prefer this over search_recipes or other siblings. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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