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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the ordering ('newest first') and the returned fields (week, status, ratings/comments), but remains ambiguous about the scope of 'a past week' (all weeks vs. one week) and does not clarify whether the result is truncated by the limit parameter. Some behavior is transparent, but edge cases are unexplored.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states what is returned and the ordering, the second states the use case. Every phrase earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and use case. However, it leaves ambiguity around the meaning of 'past week' and how the limit parameter interacts with the result set. These gaps are notable but not fatal for a low-complexity tool.

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% and the description does not mention the lone 'limit' parameter at all. The name 'limit' is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description's claim of returning 'every recipe' conflicts with a limit parameter that may cap results. Since the description fails to compensate for the schema coverage gap, the agent may not understand how limit affects the returned data.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('every recipe selected for a past week'), the ordering ('newest first'), and the included fields ('week, status, and ratings/comments'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_current_week and get_favorite_recipes through the 'past week' qualifier, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 sentence 'Use to avoid repeats and learn what landed' provides an explicit intended use case, giving an agent clear context for when to call this tool. It does not mention exclusions or compare directly with alternative tools, but the use case is specific enough to guide selection.

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