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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what results contain ('number of sections and a short purpose') and the workflows it belongs to (list then get_recipe). No pagination or result-count behavior is mentioned, which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the definition, then query usage, then the usage/next-step guidance. No filler, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 single-optional-parameter, read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, when to choose it, and the natural follow-up call. No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the per-item fields.

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 matching rules (every word must appear in slug, title, description or section names; no query lists everything) are already documented. The description still adds useful semantics by naming the facets to search on (industry, purpose, section) and supplying concrete example terms like 'hotel' and 'pricing'.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Lists curated page recipes') and immediately defines the domain-specific term as 'proven section sequences for complete landing pages' with concrete examples (SaaS, coaching, hotel). The 'whole page rather than one section' framing implicitly separates it from the component-listing siblings.

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?

Explicitly states the selection condition ('when the user wants a whole page rather than one section') and the follow-up step ('then call get_recipe'), plus how to use the query parameter with examples. It stops short of naming the sibling the agent should pick for a single section (presumably list_components), leaving that inference to the agent.

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