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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior — the return is the 'full recipe' and it is 'free', plus something called a 'next_step tool' — but says nothing about permissions, error handling for bad ids, or cost/rate characteristics.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'and its next_step tool' is opaque enough that it slightly dilutes rather than clarifies the second 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?

For a single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (full recipe) and where the id originates. Only edge-case behavior (invalid id, missing recipe) is left unaddressed.

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 0% and the single 'id' parameter is undocumented in the schema, but the description compensates by explaining that the id comes from search_recipes. It still omits id format/constraints, keeping it below a 5.

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 with scope: 'Get one recipe by id'. It also names the sibling search_recipes as the source of the id, so an agent can distinguish this single-item fetch from the search and directory siblings 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?

'from search_recipes' establishes the prerequisite workflow — search first, then fetch the full recipe by id — which is meaningful context for an agent. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison against list_directory, so it falls short of a 5.

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