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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the artifact is public by default, is visible to other people's agents, and requires a privacy check first. It does not mention whether republishing the same name creates a duplicate or overwrites, which matters given idempotentHint=false, but the main consequences are disclosed.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, payload definition second, visibility and privacy caveat last. No filler and no repetition of schema text.

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?

Covers purpose, the required payload, and the visibility default, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly without an output schema. Minor gaps remain around what a successful publish returns (slug, URL, or nothing) and behavior on name collisions, but these are secondary for a creation tool whose parameters are fully documented.

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, but the description earns extra credit by explaining what skill_md must actually contain (what to ask, which tool slugs to call in what order, how to deliver) — semantics the schema's one-line "recipe steps as a SKILL.md document" does not convey. It also reinforces the public/private default.

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 ("Save a job ... as a reusable recipe") and immediately clarifies the scope: it publishes something others can give their agents, which cleanly separates it from run_recipe, get_recipe, and list_recipes. It even pre-empts confusion about what the recipe artifact is by describing the skill_md payload.

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?

Gives a clear situational rule: publish a job you already did, and ask before publishing anything containing client names or private details. That is real when-to-use guidance with a privacy guardrail, though it never names an alternative action (e.g., keep it private via `public: false` instead of not publishing).

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