list_recommendations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context like environment selection and location being dependent on the recommender, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, return shape, or default environment resolution.

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 summary sentence is front-loaded and the Args list is clean and scannable. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every parameter explanation earns its place, especially the examples.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: required and optional parameters, defaults, and examples. It is not fully complete because it does not differentiate from sibling recommendation tools or describe what the returned recommendations look like, but these are minor gaps given the low 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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining all four parameters. It gives concrete recommender_id examples, zone/region/global values for location, the meaning of limit, and the environment parameter with examples.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List recommendations from a specific recommender at a specific location.' This clearly states the tool's function. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool list_cost_recommendations, so an agent must infer that this is the general-purpose recommender tool.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus list_cost_recommendations or other sibling tools. The parameter examples imply a general recommender context, but no alternatives, exclusions, or selection conditions are stated.

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