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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing that the call consumes an import credit from the account, waits ~40 seconds, may return status 'processing' for videos, and names the failure modes (no credits, unsupported link, failed import). This is exactly the mutation/side-effect context an agent needs for a non-read-only, open-world tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition and exclusion, then a clean bulleted 'How it works' section covering timing, return statuses, and errors. Slightly long, and 'The recipe also appears in the Recipe One app' is marginal, but no sentence is truly wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by describing both return shapes ('completed' with id/title/servings/time/tags vs 'processing' with recipeId) and the correct follow-up action for each. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it and handle 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% and the single url parameter is already documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by enumerating supported link sources (recipe websites, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Pinterest), which helps the agent judge whether a given URL is even eligible.

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 ('Imports the link with the app's own importer') and immediately scopes it to a user-supplied recipe link landing in their Recipe One library. It is clearly distinguishable from save_recipe (pasted text) and get_recipe/search_recipes (retrieval).

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 says when to use it ('user gives a link to a recipe and wants it in their library') and when not to ('Do not use it only to read or summarize a page; for recipe text pasted in the chat use save_recipe'). It also routes follow-up behavior to get_recipe and search_recipes for async video imports.

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