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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: auth depends on the recipe's steps, error semantics (stop at first failure, return partial log), and fail-fast behavior for missing vars. It also mentions the dry-run preview capability, all of which are not present in annotations.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, modes, and examples, then a compact 'Auth:' and 'Errors:' line add operational facts. No fluff or repetition; core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Covers execution semantics, auth prerequisites, and error behavior; dry-run and listing modes are described. Lacks explicit description of the success return payload (presumably the full log), and the list format when recipeId is omitted is unspecified, but overall this is nearly complete for a complex orchestrator.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description then adds meaning by explaining recipeId omission triggers listing, dryRun previews resolved steps, and missing required vars fail the run. It also gives a non-exhaustive list of vars examples (appId, appToken, b2bToken).

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 ('Execute'), resource ('a built-in recipe'), and clarifies it is an ordered sequence of this server's own tool calls. It also differentiates itself by describing two operational modes (run by id, or list for a goal) and names example flows. No other sibling tool claims to orchestrate built-in recipe sequences, so it is distinguishable.

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?

Explicitly explains how to preview with dryRun and when to omit recipeId to list recipes for a goal, and points to ethora-help for prerequisite auth configuration. It gives clear context for selecting this tool (common flow / recipe rather than individual tool calls) though it does not enumerate explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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