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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Return" weakly implies a read-only fetch, but the description discloses nothing about permissions, whether the result is static or computed, or how the returned motion relates to the filter parameters. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But the brevity is achieved by omission rather than precision — the sentence is too thin to orient an agent calling a 7-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, but with 7 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no usage context, the description leaves the agent without enough to invoke the tool correctly. It fails to carry the burden the structured fields don't cover.

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?

Seven optional parameters (status, risk_id, phase_id, wedge_id, metric_id, segment_id, question_id) exist at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. The agent cannot tell whether these are filters, selectors, or scoping identifiers, nor what values are valid.

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 names a verb ("Return") and a resource ("design partner pilot motion"), so the general shape is clear. However, "pilot motion" is abstract jargon that doesn't tell an agent what data actually comes back, and nothing distinguishes this pack from near-identical siblings like recipes_secure_context_customer_proof_pack or recipes_hosted_mcp_readiness_pack, both of which also touch buyer proof and hosted MCP validation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the many sibling packs. An agent has no basis for choosing this tool over the dozens of other recipes_* packs beyond guessing from the title.

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