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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds the decisive nuance the annotation cannot: display is temporary, renders without saving or creating a cooking session, and persistence requires a separate call. That resolves the main behavioral ambiguity for an agent deciding whether this call has lasting side effects.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the usage preference, then the persistence caveat. No repetition of annotation-level facts and no 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?

Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists, and the description covers the temporary-versus-saved distinction and routing to add_recipe. The remaining gap is payload construction — what `id` to supply for a brand-new recipe and how ingredient/step IDs must line up — which the description leaves entirely to the schema.

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% on a single deeply nested `recipe` object, and the description says nothing about the payload. Non-obvious requirements — a mandatory `id`, mandatory `meta`/`notes`, and `steps[].ingredientIds` cross-referencing `ingredients[].id` — must be inferred entirely from the schema, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 — presents a full recipe in an interactive recipe card — and enumerates what the card contains (servings, ingredients, steps, cooking mode, validated edits, Undo). It also distinguishes itself from the save path by naming add_recipe, so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit preference rule ('prefer this over plain chat formatting whenever you generate, retrieve, or substantially revise a full recipe') and concrete triggering examples like 'give me a vegan mushroom carbonara'. It also states the exclusion boundary — saving only happens through add_recipe when the user asks.

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