list_recipes

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool lists recipes with optional search, sorting, and pagination, but does not explain default behavior, response format, rate limits, or how search/sorting work. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks critical details that could be added without becoming verbose. It is appropriately sized for a brief overview but misses opportunities to convey important information.

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 output schema, no annotations, 0% schema coverage), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain response structure, search behavior, sorting options, pagination limits, or any constraints. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It maps the three capabilities to parameters (search, order_by/order_direction, page/per_page), but does not provide details on valid values, formats, or defaults beyond what the schema already shows. The added value is minimal.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'recipes', and mentions optional features like search, sorting, and pagination. This distinguishes it from get_recipe (single recipe retrieval) and other list_* tools for different resources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list_* tools that may also have similar features.

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 does not mention that get_recipe should be used for a specific recipe, or how this tool compares to other list_* tools or filtering capabilities. No usage context is given.

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