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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the output (scaled quantities + method + costing with 'ex and inc 20% VAT') and its printable framing, though it says nothing about pagination or failure behavior for an unknown slug.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the scope, and the payload, followed by a compact example. Efficient, though the example overlaps with the example already present in the schema's slug description.

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, rich annotations, and fully described parameters, the description needs only to frame what the tool produces, which it does. The remaining gap is sibling routing against build_prep_list and cost_recipe, which would help an agent choose 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the slug source and the default-to-base-portions behavior for covers. The description largely restates that ('scaled to a number of covers (portions)', 'slug cottage-pie, covers 80') rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a printable-style prep sheet for one ChefSums starter recipe') and enumerates exactly what the sheet contains: scaled ingredient quantities, method, and costing with VAT. This clearly separates it from cost_recipe and calculate_gp, which cover only the costing slice.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope ('one recipe', 'scaled to a number of covers') and by the worked example, but the description never states when to prefer this over build_prep_list or cost_recipe. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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