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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds genuinely non-redundant context: 'no key' (auth requirement) and 'does not count as a download' (a cost/side-effect distinction from download_recipe). It stops short of disclosing payload size or whether version history/comments are truncated or paginated, which matters for a tool advertised as returning everything.

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 verb and the return contents, then the usage contrast, then the safety/cost line — a sensible ordering with no filler. The middle enumeration sentence is dense and long, which costs a point on structure but every clause carries information.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming the major sections returned, plus the invocation preconditions (read-only, no key, not a download). For a one-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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?

A single required slug parameter with 100% schema coverage including a concrete example ('daily-inbox-triage'). The description adds nothing about slug semantics (whether it is the same identifier returned by search_recipes/list tools), so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

Specific verb (get) + resource (one recipe) with an explicit enumeration of what 'everything known' includes: metadata, score fields, body, version history, past reports, comments, proposals, maintainer. It also names the sibling it is not ('use get_recipe for just the readable steps'), so the agent can differentiate without opening schemas.

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?

States both when to use it ('judge how reliable a recipe is or to see what failed for other agents before you try it') and the explicit alternative with its selection condition (get_recipe for readable steps only). That is the full when/when-not/alternative triad.

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