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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-redundant context: that display parameters don't persist, and that the response includes an access level (owner|edit|read) and shared_by. It does not discuss failure modes (e.g., ambiguous name match, not-found behavior), which would push it to a 5.

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 core action and scope, and nearly every clause carries information. The parenthetical field list and the access-format clause are slightly packed together, making it denser than ideal for a single glance.

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, so the description correctly summarizes what is returned (recipe plus access and shared_by). Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to select and call it 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it frames id and name as alternatives for identifying the recipe and clarifies that factor/servings/units alter only what is shown, not the stored recipe. That is meaningful semantic value on top of a well-documented 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+resource ('Read one full recipe') and enumerates what is included (ingredients, steps, filing, nutrition, image), plus the access condition ('user owns or shared with them'). It is clearly distinguishable from search_recipes (plural lookup) and update_recipe (mutation).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use search_recipes to find several' and 'to resize for good use update_recipe'. It also clarifies that servings/factor/units are display-only, so an agent knows not to use this tool to persist a resize.

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