list_recipes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions filtering and pagination parameters, lacking details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a list operation with 5 parameters, this is insufficient to guide safe and effective usage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List recipes') and immediately lists optional filters. There is no wasted text, and it's structured to convey essential information quickly, making it highly concise.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like pagination defaults, sorting options, or response structure, leaving gaps that could hinder the agent's ability to use the tool correctly without additional 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?

The description lists all 5 parameters by name, which adds value since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it doesn't explain what each parameter does (e.g., 'rating_gte' likely means 'rating greater than or equal to'), their formats, or constraints. This provides basic awareness but not full semantic understanding.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'List recipes with optional filters'. It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('recipes'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_recipe' or 'list_meal_plans', which would require 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_recipe' (for single recipes) or 'list_meal_plans' (for different resources), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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