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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies data, or any side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements. While 'list' implies a read operation, this is not explicitly 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose and examples efficiently.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (recipes) and gives illustrative examples. It does not specify the exact output format (e.g., names vs. full details), but that is a minor gap for a list 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the input surface (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining what a 'recipe' is (sequences of sections for landing pages), which provides context beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 for no params is appropriate.

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 (Listet) and resource (kuratierte Seiten-Rezepte) and clarifies what recipes are with concrete examples (SaaS, Coaching, Hotel). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_recipe, which would retrieve a single recipe.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_recipe should be used for a specific recipe, nor does it state any conditions or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'list'.

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