List recipe share links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's main behavioral addition is clarifying that share links allow unauthenticated reading of recipes. It does not describe pagination, sorting, or what happens if the recipe parameter is invalid. With strong annotations, a 3 is fair.

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 sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the main action and result details; the second adds critical security context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a single optional parameter, high schema coverage, strong read-only annotation, and simple output expectations, the description covers the essential behavioral and security nuances. Minor gap: doesn't note if an empty result set is possible or the output format structure.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the optional 'recipe' parameter. The description does not add any extra meaning, syntax details, or behavioral context about the parameter beyond listing it in the context of the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('public share links'), clearly stating what each result shows ('recipe... and when it expires'). It differentiates from siblings like 'create_share_token' and 'delete_share_token' by explicitly focusing on listing existing tokens.

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 implies use when you need to see existing share links, but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like checking recipe access through 'get_recipe' or browsing via 'search_recipes'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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