Recipes List

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read, so the description owes little on the safety front. Beyond that it adds no behavioral context — no mention of scope (all recipes vs. filtered), pagination, or whether verification status reflects live or cached checks. It essentially restates the resource surface.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized, though it is a fragment built on a vague verb rather than a front-loaded statement of what is returned.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it gives a reasonable high-level summary of the surfaced fields. However, it omits any usage context, which matters given the overlapping recipe_get/recipe_plan siblings.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema burden is nil and the baseline is 4. No parameter explanation is needed or expected.

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 names the resource (recipes) and the attributes surfaced (requirements, availability, verification status), but the verb 'Discover' is vague for what is clearly a listing operation, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling recipe_get. An agent can infer it returns a collection of recipes, but only because of the tool name, not 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when to prefer recipe_get or recipe_plan instead, or any prerequisite context. With a similarly named sibling (recipe_get) in the toolset, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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