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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation, which is useful, but it does not mention error behavior, authorization requirements, or what happens when the slug/path does not exist. This is adequate but not rich.

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 action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition or filler.

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 one parameter and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It gives the essential retrieval mechanism. It only lacks richer context about failure modes and relationship to sibling lookup tools, but it is largely complete for a simple getter.

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 compensate. It adds meaning by indicating that the single parameter is a 'slug or path', which is important context beyond the raw string type. However, it does not provide format details, examples, or clarify how path differs from slug.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('full recipe record'), and the key access method ('by slug or path'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like recipes_list or recipes_search by indicating a direct lookup of a complete record, not a list or search result.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus recipes_list or recipes_search. There are no alternatives mentioned, no exclusions, and no context about when direct slug/path retrieval is preferred over searching or listing.

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