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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world, but the description goes well beyond them: servings scaling uses Shop rounding, scaledFrom holds the written count, scalingNote means embedded instructions must be reviewed and the recipe stays at its original servings, and it explicitly warns not to claim the recipe was adapted. It also explains optional: true garnishes and when/why nutrition is withheld -- real behavioral context an agent cannot infer from 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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the description packs unrelated instructions into semicolon-chained fragments ('Do not claim it was adapted; review ingredients and method together before a separate copy; the weekly widget asks for the dinner's servings'), which reads as jumbled and forces re-parsing. Long for a two-parameter read tool, though most content is substantive.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still flags the edge cases an agent would otherwise misuse (scaling notes, optional garnish flags, withheld nutrition) and clarifies that per-serving nutrition is an estimate, not medical advice. Nothing needed to call or interpret the result is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description partially repeats the schema's scaling wording. It still adds meaning: what scaledFrom means relative to servings, that omitting servings yields the recipe's own count, and the practical consequence of scalingNote.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns one complete recipe by recipeId') and enumerates what comes back (ingredients with quantities, method steps, timings, photo). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_recipes or update_recipe, which are list/mutation tools.

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?

Explicitly lists where recipeIds come from -- search_recipes, a menu draft, a week, or list_saved_recipes -- and covers both catalogue and user-saved recipes as valid targets. It doesn't name a 'do not use this for X' case, but no sibling competes for the same job, so the guidance is practically complete.

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