List Households Recipe Actions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this is a read-only listing operation, that there are no required parameters, what default pagination behavior is, or what the response shape is. The only behavior disclosed is that it aggregates, which is implicit in the name.

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 phrase 'Get All' is brief, but it is not conciseness; it is under-specification. It uses a generic verb that fails to identify the resource semantics and omits all helpful detail, so the single sentence does not earn its place.

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?

This is a list endpoint with eight optional pagination/filter parameters, many siblings with similar structure, and no annotations or output schema, so the description needed to explain resource scope, pagination defaults, and response format. It explains none of these. An agent cannot reliably select or invoke this tool correctly based on this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter context. Parameters like page, perPage, orderBy, queryFilter, paginationSeed, and accept-language have no documented meaning, so the agent must guess at valid values and semantics. With all parameters optional and a 0% coverage rate, the description does nothing to compensate.

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 is only 'Get All', which is a tautological restatement of the tool name and provides no information about what a 'household recipe action' is, what a list endpoint for them does, or what distinguishes this from siblings. The name and title carry all the meaning; the description adds nothing.

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 use this tool versus the other list endpoints or the create/get/update/delete siblings for household_recipe_actions. The context implies a paginated list because of the parameters, but the description does not state when this is appropriate, what scope it covers (e.g., current household, all households), or when to prefer another tool.

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