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

Goes well beyond annotations. Discloses that the server canonicalizes the document and computes the digest (so the user must not provide one), explains idempotency (identical bytes register once), notes error behavior (recipe_invalid with pointers), and clarifies source counting semantics (one id per source, not per page). Also states it builds nothing and costs nothing. All critical behavioral details are provided.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds essential behavioral details, examples, and next steps without fluff. Length is justified by the tool's complexity; it is efficient and well-organized.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the parameter's purpose, the return values (explicitly listed), error handling, idempotency, prerequisites (reading resources), and the next step. Nothing critical is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the recipe parameter's role (defines data origin, shape, constraints) and gives an example placeholder. It directs users to resources for the exact structure rather than detailing it inline, which is acceptable for a complex document. The key constraints (no digest, one source id per source) are covered.

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 ('Registers') and resource (JSON recipe) and explains what the recipe defines (data source, shape, constraints). Clearly distinct from all sibling tools; no ambiguity about what it does.

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?

Provides clear context: read reference resources before writing, and chains to start_run afterward. Doesn't mention alternatives because none exist for registering recipes, but it implicitly tells when to use it (when you have a recipe to register). No exclusions, but the guidance is practical.

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