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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the rest. It usefully discloses that each direction reports whether recent history blocks it, which tells the agent the output is history-dependent — real behavioral value. It still doesn't explain what 'blocked' means operationally or how the caller's history versus the local history file interact.

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 with no filler, and the output shape is front-loaded. But the compression goes too far — parenthetical jargon ('a recipe (start)', 'a complete look') substitutes for plain explanation rather than saving space.

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 read-only, three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does sketch the return structure and flags the history-dependent behavior, which is the main thing an agent needs. The undocumented 'product' parameter is the notable remaining gap.

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 67%, and the description adds nothing about any parameter. The 'product' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and the interaction between the caller-supplied 'history' array and the local ~/.design-lounge/history.jsonl is left unexplained in the description.

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 states it retrieves a recipe along with its 'directions' and enumerates what a direction contains (theme, pairing, family, hero, effect, work, footer), so the resource is identifiable. However, the framing ('a recipe (start)', 'a complete look', 'directions') is domain jargon and never clarifies how this differs from siblings like get_theme, get_pairing, or browse_library.

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?

No statement of when to call get_recipe versus browse_library, start_design, or pick_direction. The only routing hint ('browse_library what=recipes lists the ids') lives in the schema, not the description, so the description itself offers no usage guidance or exclusions.

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