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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it specifies what data is returned and how the includeNutrition parameter toggles additional data, going beyond the structured hints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence contributes value. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the simple get-by-id nature, an output schema exists (so return structure is covered), and the description lists the key fields and optional parameter. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it does not mention error cases or edge conditions.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description explains both parameters: 'id' is a numeric recipe identifier, and 'includeNutrition' controls whether full nutrition data is returned. This adds clear meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Fetch full details') and resource ('Spoonacular recipe by numeric id'), and lists the returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recipe_ingredients or recipe_summary that focus on subsets.

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?

Usage is implied through the phrase 'full details' and the field list, suggesting that this tool is for comprehensive recipe data. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling recipe tools.

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