List Recipes Shared By Token Zip

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key behavior of returning a Zip file containing a recipe and its original image, and 'Get' implies a read operation. However, it does not mention token validity, authorization requirements, whether the operation is read-only, or what happens for invalid/expired tokens, so transparency is partial.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action ('Get') and the output type ('as a Zip file') immediately. Every word contributes to the core 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 a tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it names the resource and the return format. But it does not explain the shared-token access model, error behavior, or how the zip is structured, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent that lacks broader API context.

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%, so the description should compensate by explaining what token_id means or where it comes from, but it does not. The description never mentions the token or its role in identifying the shared recipe, leaving the agent to infer semantics solely from the parameter name and tool name.

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 clearly identifies a specific action and resource: 'Get a recipe and its original image as a Zip file.' It conveys both the content and the delivery format, which separates it from a plain metadata lookup. It loses a point because it does not explicitly mention the shared-token context or differentiate itself from the sibling get_recipes_shared_by_token, and the title's 'List Recipes' conflicts with the singular 'a recipe' in the description.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool instead of get_recipes_shared_by_token or any other sibling, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a valid share token. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the token_id parameter.

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