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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool works without an account (auth requirement), that it is non-persistent ('does not save anything'), that it performs no network or library access (matching openWorldHint=false), and that output is a rendered interactive card. The annotations only declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety, so these are genuine additions rather than restatements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then its constraints, then the sibling hand-off. Every clause earns its place — no restatement of the name or title 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?

For a two-parameter tool with a fully documented nested schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints and persistence behavior adequately. The only remaining ambiguity is what the rendered card actually surfaces, but with no output schema and a complete input contract this is a minor gap.

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 100% and the nested recipe schema already documents every field in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only 'optionally scale its ingredients', slightly clarifying the effect of the top-level servings parameter beyond the schema's 'Optional serving count to scale the card to'; the recipe parameter carries no extra guidance in prose.

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 ('Show a recipe created or pasted in this conversation'), names the output form ('interactive recipe card') and the optional modifier ('scale its ingredients'). It also rules out the adjacent capabilities (library access, link fetch, saving) in the same breath, so an agent can distinguish it from get_recipe, import_recipe_from_url and save_recipe 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?

Explicit when-not clauses ('does not access a library, fetch a link, or save anything') and a named alternative with its selecting condition ('Use save_recipe only when the user wants to save it'). Implicitly routes URL imports to import_recipe_from_url and library reads to get_recipe, giving the agent complete routing guidance.

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