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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the cost (1 credit per call), the exact scope of what is shared (workflow only, never account or results), and the return value (a share code). It does not mention auth/permission needs, but the disclosure of side effects and cost is strong.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then scope and cost. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, sharing scope, and the return value well. The only real gap is that the 'name' argument is left entirely to the schema.

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 0% and the description never mentions the single 'name' parameter or its format constraints. An agent must infer from the schema's regex pattern alone that this is the recipe identifier, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('publish a copy of one of your recipes') plus the concrete outcome ('get a share code'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like recipe_save and recipe_import.

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?

Implies the use case (share a recipe with others) and names recipe_import as the counterpart that consumes the share code, which helps routing. However, it never states explicitly when to choose publish over recipe_save, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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