recipe_crud_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 behavioral burden, and it discloses essentially nothing: no indication that this is a read-only operation, no pagination/filter/sort semantics for the 18 parameters, no note on default page size, and no return-shape information. The keyword soup substitutes for behavioral content rather than providing it.

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 first sentence ('Get All — Recipe: CRUD. List recipes.') is front-loaded and adequate, but the trailing keyword block is pure padding that repeats 'recipe/recipes' across a dozen near-synonymous verbs. It inflates length without adding meaning.

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 an 18-parameter, annotation-free, output-schema-free list tool, the description is grossly incomplete: no filter/sort/pagination explanation, no read-only assurance, and no return-value guidance. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly from the definition alone.

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?

With 18 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it explains none of them. Parameters like tags, foods, tools, search, queryFilter, orderBy, paginationSeed, requireAllTags, and cookbook are entirely undocumented 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 clear verb+resource — 'List recipes' — with the HTTP endpoint [GET /api/recipes], so the operation is identifiable. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings such as explore_recipes_get_all, shared_recipes_get_all, or recipe_crud_suggest_recipes, which also return recipes. The keyword block adds no discriminating 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 or when-not-to-use guidance. The only navigation aid is a repetitive keyword list ('list, get, search, find, browse, fetch, read'), which does not tell an agent when to pick this tool over explore_recipes_get_all or recipe_crud_get_one.

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