list_recipes

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: serving_type is fixed at creation, 'weight' and 'servings' have different logging and display behaviors, and include_retired controls inclusion of retired recipes. This goes beyond the structured 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?

The description is reasonably concise and front-loads the core purpose. The serving_type explanation is slightly verbose but earns its place by clarifying an important response field; the Args line is crisp.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described. The description covers the tool's purpose, the significant serving_type behavior, and the only parameter. It omits mention of pagination or ordering, which are typical for list tools, but this is not a critical gap.

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 schema provides no description for include_retired, so the description's Args block supplies the needed meaning: 'Keep retired recipes in the result when they appear.' This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though it could more explicitly define 'retired' and clarify the default exclusion behavior.

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 identifies the resource ('every recipe you own') and the key included attribute (serving_type), making the tool's purpose evident. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'List' and does not differentiate it from sibling tools such as list_custom_foods.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites stated. The description only states what the result contains, not the conditions under which this tool is appropriate.

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