explore_recipes_get_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies safety via a bare 'read-only' keyword. It says nothing about pagination behavior, permission requirements, result caps, or what the group scope actually restricts, which is a large gap for a 19-parameter listing tool.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one short sentence, but that sentence is then buried under a long keyword-stuffing block that adds no informational value and inflates the definition. Roughly half the text is SEO noise rather than content that earns its place.

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?

A 19-parameter, filter-heavy listing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation is left almost entirely undescribed. An agent has no basis to know how to filter, sort, or page results correctly, so the definition is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0% across 19 parameters, and the description supplies almost no compensating meaning. Only group_slug is inferable from the endpoint path; the many filters (tags, foods, tools, households, requireAll*, orderBy, paginationSeed, etc.) are entirely unexplained in both schema and 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 states a specific verb and resource ('List recipes') and the endpoint path reveals the group-scoped explore surface. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from close siblings like recipe_crud_get_all, explore_recipes_suggest_recipes, or shared_recipes_get_all, so the agent gets a clear purpose but no routing signal.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The trailing keyword list ('list recipe, get recipe, search recipe...') is synonym spam, not usage guidance, so nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over recipe_crud_get_all or the suggest-recipes sibling.

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