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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only states that the tool 'returns' evidence. It does not disclose whether evidence is computed or fetched, whether the call has side effects, whether authorization is needed, or what the evidence actually contains.

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?

A single, grammatically clean declarative sentence with no wasted words and the key modality terms front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but as a structural matter it is efficient and readable.

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?

Although an output schema exists and relieves the description of explaining return values, the definition still lacks parameter documentation (0% coverage), usage guidance, and behavioral disclosure. For a tool with 5 undocumented parameters sitting in a large family of similarly named recipes, this is far from complete.

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% for all 5 parameters, and the description never mentions mode, decision, risk_tier, profile_id, or workflow_id. The parameter names are mildly suggestive, but the description does nothing to compensate for the total absence of schema documentation, leaving an agent to guess valid values and relationships.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and names a resource ('MCP form-mode and URL-mode elicitation boundary evidence'), so it does state the tool's function. However, 'elicitation boundary evidence' is domain jargon, and the description does nothing to distinguish this from the many sibling boundary packs (e.g., recipes_context_egress_boundary_pack, recipes_mcp_stdio_launch_boundary_pack).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the ~70 sibling recipe tools, including several other 'boundary_pack' tools. No context, conditions, or exclusions are provided anywhere in the description.

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