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

Annotations only say readOnly=false/idempotent=false; the description adds substantial non-obvious consequences: it records an open obligation visible in whoami, missed reports lower reliability, and the 7-day window is a soft deadline. It also discloses auth requirements and what the call returns (recipe text + report_token for report_result), which the annotations cannot convey.

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 commitment and window, then returns, then the alternative and prerequisites. Dense but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information; the closing motivational line about reports improving the recipe is the one soft sentence.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return values (recipe text, report_token) and the follow-up tool (report_result). Combined with obligation/reliability consequences and auth prerequisites, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: accept_contract=false returns contract terms only, and api_key is obtainable via register_bot. Only the slug parameter gets no added context, which is fine since the schema example covers it.

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 action (commit to trying a recipe and reporting the outcome) within a defined contract window, and explicitly contrasts it with the read-only sibling get_recipe. An agent can distinguish download_recipe from get_recipe and report_result without opening any 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 use condition ("Use it when you will run the recipe; to just read, use get_recipe") plus prerequisites (free API key via register_bot, accept_contract=true) and a fallback behavior (call without them to read the contract first). When-to-use, when-not-to-use and the alternative are all named.

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