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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: premium recipes hide the ingredient list, the result flags this and suggests free alternatives, plus adult-only scope and no health/nutrition advice. These are non-obvious response-shape caveats an agent could not derive from the 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?

Front-loaded with the use case and examples, then the exclusion, then caveats — a logical order with no filler. It is on the long side and the return-field enumeration partially duplicates the output schema, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 an output schema, the description covers trigger conditions, the exclusion case, the premium-paywall edge case, and content restrictions. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the response.

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% and the schema already documents that the single parameter accepts a name, slug, or fixmeadrinkapp.com URL. The description restates the same three accepted forms without adding format or resolution rules, so it adds little beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 ("Gets that recipe from the Garçon catalogue") and enumerates the returned content (description, glass, ice, garnish, amounts, steps, strength, page). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling find_cocktails_by_ingredients, so an agent can route without opening either 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 concrete when-to-use triggers with example user utterances ("How do I make an Espresso Martini?") and an explicit when-not-to-use rule naming the alternative tool for the ingredient-list case. Nothing is left to inference.

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