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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scope context — that team-shared items are included and that returned entries carry their input definitions — which the annotations do not convey.

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 short sentences: the scope/return statement comes first, the sibling hand-off second. No filler and no restating of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must hint at return content — it does so by saying entries include the inputs each recipe takes. Given a zero-param, read-only list tool this is nearly complete; a note on ordering or empty-result behavior would close the gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to mistranslate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments are available.

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?

Specific verb+resource: shows the recipes and workflows a user saved, including team-shared ones, along with each one's inputs. This clearly separates it from sibling list tools such as list_my_creations and list_my_skills.

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 routes the agent to run_my_recipe for execution, which is the natural follow-on action. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. 'use get_recipe_run for past runs'), so it stops short of a 5.

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