List Favorites

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavior: sort order (newest first), persistence across sessions, and inclusion of notes/metadata. It omits auth or permission requirements, pagination or result limits for large collections, and empty-collection behavior, and much of the 'returned data includes' list restates what the output schema already provides.

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 essential facts (what it lists, sort order, source, optional session filter) are front-loaded, but the definition then spends nine bullet points, five of which enumerate return fields already covered by the output schema. Roughly half the text could be deleted without losing information the agent needs.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with an output schema, the definition covers the important gaps: sort order, persistence, and notes inclusion. It leaves open whether favorites are scoped per user profile (relevant given create_user_profile/list_user_profiles siblings) and whether large collections are truncated.

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 100%, so the single optional user_session filter is already fully documented including its omit-behavior. The description adds little beyond that — 'User session information for organization' is the only oblique nod to the parameter — so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('user's favorite recipes') plus the storage location ('persistent storage'), which tells an agent exactly what it returns. It is distinguishable from add_to_favorites and remove_from_favorites, though it never names those siblings explicitly to reinforce the boundary.

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 'Use this tool to' block gives concrete contexts, including the useful routing hint 'Check what recipes you've already saved before adding duplicates', which implicitly points at add_to_favorites. There are no explicit when-not conditions or a direct 'use X instead' statement, so the agent must infer the counter-cases.

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