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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the output is text, the tool is preparatory, and it does not itself authorize paid downstream calls.

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 return type and then enumerates the recipe values. The long enum list is dense but each entry earns its place by clarifying a valid option. The guidance sentences are compact and purposeful.

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 read-only guide tool with no output schema, the description says it returns text and when it should be read. It also explains the authorization boundary for paid calls. It does not describe the internal recipe format in detail, but sufficient context is provided for correct invocation.

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% and the enum already lists valid recipe names. The description adds useful semantics by briefly explaining what each recipe represents, going beyond the schema's minimal 'Which recipe.' description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it returns a step-by-step recipe as text. It enumerates every supported recipe type, making the tool's scope unambiguous and clearly separating it from the generation/action siblings such as generate_video or generate_image.

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 gives clear timing guidance: 'Read it before a flow's first call.' It also warns that the recipe is a guide, not user authorization, so paid calls still require their own price and ask. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the core when-to-use condition is explicit.

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