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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful operational behavior beyond annotations: default last-updated sorting, full=true expansion to all nutrients, page-size cap, and last-page detection via fewer than 20 rows.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and returned fields, then covers sorting, full expansion, pagination, and the endpoint without wasted prose. Each sentence contributes operational information an agent can use.

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 paginated list tool with a fully described schema and read-only annotations, the description supplies a clear return-field summary plus sorting, full-expansion, and pagination termination behavior. Although there is no output schema, the description gives enough context about what comes back.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mostly restates the schema's full=true, default sorting, and page-size behavior, adding only the useful last-page rule; it adds little for archived, sort_direction, or sort_field.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List your recipes (products)') and immediately characterizes the returned data, including yield, servings, costs, and headline nutrition. This clearly distinguishes it from single-recipe retrieval siblings such as recipal_get_recipe and from mutation tools.

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?

It establishes the listing use case and explains key options like full=true and pagination behavior. It does not explicitly contrast this with recipal_get_recipe for fetching one recipe, nor does it explain when to use archived filtering, so routing guidance is clear but not complete.

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