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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: no auth required, no API calls made, and effectively no error modes. Return shape (recipes/next calls) is only implied.

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 tight blocks: one sentence of purpose, then a compact Auth/Errors/Related line. Front-loaded and waste-free, though the Auth/Errors/Related shorthand is slightly compressed.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only helper with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, auth, error behavior and follow-up routing. It could state more concretely what the response contains (recipe ids, next-call list), but nothing needed to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the single `goal` enum carries an exhaustive per-value explanation, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only gestures at the same behaviors ('based on current session state'), adding little beyond it; 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?

States a specific role (task-oriented orientation for this MCP server) plus concrete content: explaining the three auth modes and recommending next tool calls and recipes. It is clearly not a status/CRUD tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with ethora-status, the nearest sibling.

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 clear context for invocation (recommendations inferred from current session state) and routes follow-up work by saying a recommended recipe id should be passed to `ethora-recipe-run`. No explicit when-not-to-use or statement of where `ethora-status` is preferred instead.

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