list_recipes

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies read-only access via the word 'Read'. It says nothing about pagination behavior, how filtering interacts with results, what 'locked' recipes mean, or any auth/permission context. The presence of an output schema excuses explaining return values, but not the call semantics.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, but it is a noun-phrase fragment that lists output fields rather than front-loading the action ('list recipes') and scope. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be described, and zero required parameters lowers the risk of misuse. However, for a four-parameter filtered-list tool with no annotations, the description omits everything an agent needs to choose arguments 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters (limit, query, offset, include_locked), so the description needed to compensate and does not. Only the phrase 'research availability' loosely gestures at locked/research-gated content, leaving query syntax, pagination defaults, and include_locked's effect undocumented.

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 enumerates the fields returned (ingredients, products, category, energy, research availability) and implies a read of recipe data, but never states plainly that it lists recipes or what the result set represents. It also gives no differentiation from sibling tools like list_prototypes, which plausibly overlaps.

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 guidance on when to call this versus list_prototypes or research, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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