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

Annotations mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description adds real context beyond that: the default 14-day contract window, the auth requirement, and the report_token returned on success. It does not say what happens if the window lapses or if the call is retried, which is the main remaining gap.

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, each earning its place: what the tool commits to, what it returns, and the auth/contract prerequisites. The commit semantics and window are front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description correctly names the return payload (recipe text and report_token) and covers prerequisites and the time window. It falls short only on failure/expiry behavior for what is an irreversible non-idempotent commitment.

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 67%, and the description supplies the missing behavioral meaning for accept_contract (acts as the commit switch, omit to preview the contract) and reiterates the API key requirement. This is more than the schema's terse 'Must be true to download'.

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 clarifies the misleading name 'download_recipe' by stating the real action: committing to try a recipe and reporting back within a contract window. This distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like get_recipe and get_recipe_details, which merely fetch content.

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?

It gives an explicit two-step workflow: call without accept_contract to read the contract, then set accept_contract=true to commit. It states the API key requirement, but does not explicitly name get_recipe as the read-only alternative for agents who just want recipe text.

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