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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what the payload contains (ingredients, steps, tags), which is useful given there is no output schema; it doesn't cover not-found behavior or errors.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but each clause still carries content.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and a fully documented schema, the definition tells the agent enough to call it correctly and even summarizes the return contents in lieu of an output schema. Only edge-case behavior (invalid/missing id) is absent.

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%, so the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by id' and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so baseline 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?

A specific verb+resource ('hent én oppskrift' / 'Get one recipe') plus the returned content (ingredients, method, tags). The 'by id' / 'én' framing implicitly distinguishes it from list_recipes and search_recipes, though it never names those siblings.

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 only implied: you fetch one recipe by id. There is no explicit 'use this when you already have an id from search_recipes/list_recipes' or 'do not use to discover recipes' statement in the description itself (that hint lives only in the schema).

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