list_recipes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful output-shape information (raw data vs clickable widget vs standalone HTML), which is genuinely beyond the schema. But it says nothing about read-only nature, cost, or side effects of the widget path.

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?

Front-loads purpose in the first clause, then packs the surface variants into a compact pipe-delimited list. Every element earns its place; only the somewhat dense inline formatting keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers both the 'why/when' and the single parameter's valid values, which is sufficient for a zero-required-parameter listing tool. Minor gap: no note on what the data/shape of the returned recipes actually looks like.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'surface' param has no enum in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does: it enumerates all three values (data = raw recipes/default, widget = clickable HTML for show_widget in Cowork, html = self-contained fallback) and marks the default, which is exactly the missing semantics.

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?

States a specific purpose: a menu of what the council can do, expressed in simple phrases. The verb 'list' plus the 'recipes' concept is clear from name+description together. It does not, however, distinguish itself from plausible siblings like explain_self or quote_of_day, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger conditions: show it when the user doesn't know what to ask, or asks 'what can you do / where do I start'. That is clear when-to-use guidance. No when-not-to-use or named alternative (e.g. explain_self) is given, so not a 5.

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