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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious trait: the upstream API returns the entire list and search/limit/offset are applied here, so the agent understands filtering happens client-side. It also names the fields returned, which is useful information beyond the safety hints.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then routing, then result-set behavior. The field enumeration in sentence one is long but earns its place, and there is 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the returned fields and the pagination model, so an agent knows what comes back and how to page. It omits mention of next_offset, which the schema references but the description never explains in the return context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot: that search/limit/offset 'slice' an already-complete API response, clarifying cost and semantics. It does not restate tag/type filtering, leaving the description slightly under-powered relative to the five parameters.

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 ('List the recipes, sub-recipes and ingredients in the Parsley account') and enumerates returned fields, which distinguishes it from parsley_list_ingredients and parsley_list_menus. An agent can tell this is the event-usable menu item catalog rather than a generic ingredient or menu listing.

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 follow-up work to parsley_get_menu_item ('Use the ids with parsley_get_menu_item for nutrition, allergens and ingredients, and on events'), giving a clear when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-that. It does not say when to prefer parsley_list_ingredients or parsley_list_menus, which overlap partially, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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