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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses a real side effect of filtering ('les recettes sans valeur nutritionnelle sont alors exclues') and the pagination contract with nextOffset/null. Missing only things like default page size behavior or ordering guarantees beyond the title sort.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then filters, then pagination, then the sibling pointer. No redundancy with the schema or annotations — every clause adds information.

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 filtered-list tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: filter semantics, the exclusion side effect, pagination contract, and the escalation path to get_recipe.

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; the description goes beyond it by explaining that maxTotalMinutes includes prep plus cook time and that maxNetCarbsG implicitly excludes recipes lacking nutrition data — semantics no schema field carries. category as a slug is also clarified with an example.

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 ('Liste les recettes publiques d'Elfy.Life') with the domain qualifier (cétogènes, pauvres en glucides) and the sort order (par titre). It explicitly routes detail lookups to get_recipe, so an agent can separate it from its sibling without opening a schema.

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?

The description names get_recipe as the alternative for single-recipe detail and marks all filters as optional, giving clear usage context. It stops short of stating when to prefer other siblings like search_content, so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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