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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description goes further by explaining the shape of each returned recipe: `ask` questions for ambiguous requests, `prerequisites`, the tools to call, `template` placeholders with `<<name>>` substitution, and `afterApply` follow-up. It also disambiguates template kinds (a `setting` template is a user setting, not a workflow; a `then` call runs after apply with created ids), which is genuine behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the call-timing instruction, then structured around the recipe fields using backticked identifiers. The two long parenthetical enumerations of build and automation categories are heavy but earn their place by supplying matching vocabulary; they could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, this covers the essential gaps: when to call it, what the returned recipe contains, how templates map to steps.draft/tool args/settings, and what a `then` call does. The only omission is any mention of the result cap (`limit` max 3) and default paging behavior, which matters for an agent deciding whether to refine a query.

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 50%: `query` is well documented as "the user's request, in their words and language" while `limit` (1-3) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description's category lists implicitly define what to search for, but it adds no explicit parameter guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Find worked recipes") and enumerates the covered domains (builds: formula, rollup, rating, autofill, dependencies, views, CRM dashboards; automations: email-to-sheet, scheduled item, Slack/Telegram). This clearly separates it from siblings like template.browse, workflow.from_template, and steps.apply, which an agent could otherwise confuse with it.

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?

"Call it before drafting a build or an automation" gives an explicit trigger point in the agent's workflow. It does not name alternatives or when-not conditions (e.g. when to prefer template.browse or workflow.from_template instead), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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