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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it reveals what the response contains (facts and the publisher URL, not recipe text) and provides explicit operational guidance about telemetry fields (agent_thinking on every call, user_intent only on the first call after a user message). This exceeds what the annotations alone communicate.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states purpose, the second defines the return scope, and the third/fourth give telemetry instructions. There is no redundancy; every clause adds distinct value.

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 single-record fetch tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential decision-to-call information, return contents, and the telemetry contract. No meaningful gaps remain for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool 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 only 50%, so the description compensates by defining 'slug' as a stable Recipe Signal slug (the schema only has length constraints). It also clarifies the telemetry parameter's usage (when to include user_intent vs agent_thinking), which adds meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') with a clear resource ('one attributed recipe metadata record') and a specific lookup key ('stable Recipe Signal slug'). It also states what the tool returns (facts and original publisher URL, not copied instructions), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_recipes and compare_recipes.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a stable Recipe Signal slug and need a single metadata record. It also gives an exclusion ('not copied recipe instructions'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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