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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is listing (read-only) but gives no details about return format, pagination, side effects, or permissions. The examples of recipe categories add slight context but insufficient behavioral depth.

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 a single concise sentence that is easy to scan and front-loads the core function. No wasted words, earning high marks for efficiency.

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 the two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal to be fully actionable. It lacks parameter explanations and return value details, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke with appropriate arguments.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (`goal`, `domain`) with zero schema description coverage, and the description does not mention either parameter. The agent is left without any guidance on what these parameters control, such as filtering or sorting, which is a significant gap.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and resource 'tool chain recipes' with examples (PDF, web, OCR, video), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like `run_chain` and `list_tools`. It effectively conveys the tool's function.

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 implies usage via the verb 'List' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. For example, it doesn't contrast with `run_chain` or `list_tools`. This is minimal but provides implied context.

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