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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: it explains that quantities are PARSED with amount, unit, and a normalized base in grams/millilitres, and how count-based lines are handled with gram estimates. This informs the agent about the output structure and precision, which is valuable context not present in annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Full recipe for one dish') and then elaborates on the key detail of parsed quantities. Every clause adds value—no redundancy or filler. It is concise and well-structured.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values in full, but it adds valuable context about the normalized quantities and gram estimates. The tool is simple (get recipe by slug) and the description covers the essential behavior. There are no obvious missing pieces an agent would need to call it correctly.

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%: both 'lang' (with enum and default) and 'slug' (with explanation of language and resolution by search) are fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so a baseline 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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: get the full recipe for a single dish, listing the exact components (steps, FAQ, image credit, ingredients with parsed quantities). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_dishes (finding dishes) and compare_dishes (comparing).

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?

The description implies usage: when you have a slug or dish name and need a complete recipe, use this tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling names and the description's focus on a single dish give enough contextual cue. A clear 'use this for a specific dish' statement is missing.

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