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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses an important behavioral trait: returned IDs are account-relative counters starting at 1, so they are safe to display and are the values other tools expect. This prevents common misuses such as treating IDs as global references. No statement contradicts 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 sentences carry the full semantic load with no filler. The main function is front-loaded, and the critical ID caveat is placed in a short second sentence where it cannot be missed.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema and no required parameters, the description covers function, filter dimensions, and the non-obvious ID contract. The annotations already establish the safety profile, so nothing essential is left for an agent to guess.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 25%, the description must compensate for the undocumented bean_id, grinder_id, and machine_id parameters. It does so only partially by grouping them under 'equipment' and noting optional status filtering; it does not explain each parameter's meaning or how filters combine, though the parameter names are self-explanatory.

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 'List recipes' — a specific verb and resource — and immediately narrows scope to 'all or filtered by equipment and status,' which separates it from the other list_* siblings that target different record types. The title says 'locked recipes,' but the description's broader phrasing still identifies the exact operation without ambiguity.

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?

It clearly frames the tool as a list/filter operation and notes that the returned `id` is 'what other tools expect back,' telling an agent to use this tool when it needs recipe IDs for later calls. It does not spell out exclusions or when-not-to-use alternatives, but the entity-specific list_* siblings make that inference straightforward.

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