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

Beyond the readOnly and openWorld annotations, the description discloses important behavior: counts only, never identity, the cook's own activity excluded, and a precise definition of what counts as a cook. It also states presentation order, cross-references /me/stats parity, and says to quote definitions.cook when definitions are asked about.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose and metrics, then moves to usage, privacy/definition constraints, and presentation guidance. Every sentence carries operational value, including the example questions and the /me/stats parity note.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and schema coverage is complete, the description provides enough complementary context: what is counted, what is excluded, how results should be presented, and where to point users for metric definitions. No essential invocation detail 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both range and recipe parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds useful metric context ('in total and by day, per recipe and by region') but does not add parameter-specific syntax, format, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verbless but precise resource: the cook's own recipe performance across views, shares, prints, cooks, saves, versions, and ratings. It clearly scopes this to the cook's own recipes and contrasts with identity-level feedback by saying 'Counts only, never who.' An agent can distinguish it from siblings such as get_my_recipe_feedback and get_my_kitchen.

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?

It gives clear usage context with example questions like 'how's my recipe doing?' and 'what's my most popular recipe?' and specifies the audience as a cook who publishes. It also bounds interpretation with 'Counts only, never who' and 'cook's own activity is left out,' but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for related questions.

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