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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral disclosures: runbooks are 'guidance, not proof that a migration ran' and a detailed privacy statement about which data Stackcut stores, hashes, or never retains. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: usage scope, return behavior, output caveat, and privacy disclosure. The privacy sentence is dense but valuable; the description is front-loaded with the core usage guidance and stays appropriately sized.

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 tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the definition covers the essential context: when to use it, what it returns, a caveat about output interpretation, and data-retention behavior. It lacks a mention of pagination or exact response structure, but those are less critical given the sibling get_workflow_recipe provides full details.

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 67% (query and vendor have descriptions; limit does not). The description adds example queries that match the query parameter but does not clarify limit semantics or add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. It meets the baseline for medium coverage but does not exceed it.

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 ('search') on a specific resource ('workflow recipes') and scopes it to 'whole operational change' rather than a single subscription, with concrete examples. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_workflow_recipe by noting that tool returns one recipe in full.

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 says to use for a whole operational change rather than a single subscription, giving clear when-to-use context. It also points to get_workflow_recipe for retrieving a full recipe, but does not explicitly name search_recipes as the single-subscription alternative, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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