list_cookbooks

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds 'Bounded' (implying limits/pagination) and 'known indexing coverage' (signaling results reflect the current index), which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant explanation.

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 simple read-only list tool with two optional, self-explanatory parameters and strong annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It names the returned content ('cookbooks' and 'indexing coverage') but stops short of describing result shape or pagination behavior, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 does not explain limit or max_pages. 'Bounded' loosely hints at pagination/limits but does not clarify the parameters' meaning, defaults, or interaction, so the description fails to compensate for the sparse schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List cookbooks on the user's EYB shelf') and adds the useful scope of 'known indexing coverage.' It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search_my_recipes.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and the sibling search_my_recipes is not mentioned. 'Bounded, read-only' describes constraints but does not help an agent decide between this tool and the alternative.

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