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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context those annotations cannot: the call returns the persisted canonical version and deliberately omits session-scoped edits, which tells the agent the result may lag live cooking state. It stops short of noting errors for unknown ids or any catalog-vs-library access differences.

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, no filler, with the primary behavior front-loaded and the exclusion appended. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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-value detail is not required, and annotations handle the safety profile, so the description need only cover selection guidance and id semantics. It is adequate on the former and silent on the latter, which for a single-parameter lookup tool is the one gap that actually matters.

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% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the description carries the full burden. It never says what the id is (library id, catalog id, slug) or whether the same id space spans both the library and the public catalog, which is exactly the ambiguity the two-source framing creates. This is the definition's weakest area.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Returns the saved canonical recipe') and names the two sources (library, public catalog), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not differentiate itself from the closest sibling, display_recipe, nor from list_my_recipes, so an agent still has to infer which retrieval-shaped tool applies.

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?

There is one useful exclusion — in-progress cooking edits live in sessions and are not returned here — which implicitly routes the agent elsewhere for live state. However, no sibling is named and no positive trigger is given (e.g., 'use this when you already have an id; use list_my_recipes to enumerate'), leaving selection between get_recipe, display_recipe, and list_my_recipes to inference.

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