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

Annotations only cover safety (readOnly, closed-world); the description goes further and discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait — that video step timestamps and the review list come back locked or empty without a token, matching anonymous site behavior. This is exactly the kind of auth-dependent degradation an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents before the authentication caveat. Nothing is padded and the order reflects how an agent would decide to call it.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned sections, and it fully covers the only optional parameter's effect. Nothing material is left open for a read-only, two-parameter fetch.

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% and the session_token description already says 'Omit it to act as a logged-out visitor', so the description largely restates it. The added value is marginal — it explains consequences (locked fields) rather than parameter semantics.

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 — 'Fetch one recipe's full detail' — and enumerates the payload (ingredients with amounts, steps, nutrition, grocery-cost pricing), which implicitly separates it from the listing tool search_recipes. It never names a sibling explicitly, so routing to the wrong read tool is possible but unlikely.

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 clear guidance on the one real branch point: the optional session token and what a logged-out caller loses. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over search_recipes or other recipe tools, and names no exclusions, so a small inference remains.

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