recipe_comments_get_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only offers the bare keyword "read-only" with no substance. It says nothing about pagination behavior (despite page/perPage params), ordering defaults, authentication needs, or the shape of results, which is a large gap for a 7-parameter list 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 useful content is confined to two short front-loaded lines, after which the description degenerates into a long comma-separated keyword spam list. The bulk adds no differentiating information, so the definition is bloated rather than concise despite the brevity of its substantive opening.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin: it omits parameter meaning, pagination behavior, and routing versus siblings. The keyword tail substitutes volume for the substantive detail an agent needs to call this tool correctly.

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 7 parameters (page, orderBy, perPage, queryFilter, orderDirection, paginationSeed, orderByNullPosition) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. It does not clarify pagination, filter syntax, ordering semantics, or the meaning of paginationSeed, leaving the agent to guess entirely.

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?

"Get All — Recipe: Comments. List comments." names a clear verb (list) and resource (comments), so the basic purpose is understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as get_recipe_comments or recipe_comments_get_one, and the endpoint shown (/api/comments) leaves ambiguous whether it lists all comments globally or a recipe's comments.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_recipe_comments or recipe_comments_get_one. The trailing keyword list is a synonym dump, not routing guidance, so an agent gets no condition for selecting this tool over its siblings.

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