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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the shape of the returned payload (storage/defreezing/reheating guidance, nutrition, allergens), which is real added value given there is no output schema. It does not cover failure modes or unknown-identifier behaviour.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with 'Recette complète' and then enumerates the sections, with no filler. The enumeration is dense but every listed item maps to a section an agent can expect.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so thoroughly. The remaining gap is the absence of any behavioural note (unknown identifier, missing recipe), which is minor for an idempotent read.

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 single parameter already documents both its meaning and its format (e.g. chili-sin-carne-et-riz-complet). The description adds nothing about parameters, so the 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?

The description enumerates exactly what the resource is (a complete recipe with quantified ingredients, cooking-session steps, plating, storage, nutrition and allergens), which is clear and specific. However, it never states the retrieval act relative to siblings such as chercher_recettes (search) or recettes_avec (recipes filtered by something), so differentiation is left to the tool name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated alternative, and no precondition. The only hint that an identifier should come from chercher_recettes lives in the input schema, not in the description.

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