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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that the record is 'ny' (new) and lands in MyFoodNotes; it does not disclose duplicate-handling, permission requirements, or whether a recipe ID is returned.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination. The English sentence largely repeats the Norwegian one, which is mildly redundant but defensible for a bilingual tool surface.

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 9 parameters fully documented in the schema and annotations covering the safety profile, most of the burden is already met. The remaining gap is the return contract: there is no output schema and the description never says what a successful save yields (e.g., the created recipe's ID), which an agent needs to chain into get_recipe.

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% across all 9 parameters, so the schema carries the semantic load (units, section headers, URL formats, numeric bounds). The description only echoes the three required fields and adds no meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Lagre en ny oppskrift' / 'Save a new recipe') plus the destination store ('brukerens MyFoodNotes'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It is implicitly distinguishable from the read-only siblings (get/list/search), but the description never names them or states the write-vs-read boundary explicitly.

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?

It lists prerequisites ('Krever tittel, minst én ingrediens og fremgangsmåte'), which tells an agent the minimum viable call. However, this duplicates the schema's required array, and there is no guidance on when to use this versus the sibling tools or what to do when a similar recipe already exists.

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