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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: which fields stay private (provider prompt template, reprompt rules) and that a run recipe returns run_inputs and step_count but never its steps. That is meaningful disclosure the annotations cannot convey.

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 resource, then layered with the variant-specific caveats. The reprompt sentence is dense but each clause carries information; there is very little filler.

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, and it instead spends its budget on the privacy and step-hiding quirks that an agent could not otherwise know. The remaining gap is the lack of routing against get_own_recipe, but overall it is complete for a one-param read tool.

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 0% for the single recipe_id parameter. The description only implies it is looked up 'by id' and says nothing about the uuid format or what constitutes a valid recipe id, so it adds marginal value over the schema.

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 one recipe by id') and goes further by enumerating the recipe variants (look, guided, reprompt, run) and the artifacts returned (recommended models, creative guidance, media slots). It does not, however, differentiate from the nearby sibling get_own_recipe, which an agent could confuse with this tool.

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 closing line routes the agent to create_recipe for authoring, which is genuine usage guidance, but the tool never states when to use get_recipe versus get_own_recipe or list_recipes. Usage is implied rather than made explicit for the fetch alternatives.

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