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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about the return content (calories, macros, percent daily values), but does not disclose any potential edge behaviors (errors, rate limits, or response formats) beyond what the output schema already presents. This is baseline value-add given the annotations.

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 concise sentences that immediately state the purpose and then detail the return contents. There is no fluff or unnecessary information, and the key actions are front-loaded.

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 tool has a single parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential usage: what to pass (a recipe id) and what to expect (nutrition breakdown). It is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool, and it differentiates among many recipe-related siblings.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that `id` refers to a Spoonacular recipe id. This gives semantic meaning to an otherwise bare numeric parameter, though it does not provide additional constraints or examples beyond the schema's existing sample.

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 the tool's action ('Fetch') and resource ('full nutrition breakdown for a Spoonacular recipe'), with a specific scope (by `id`). It distinguishes from sibling tools like recipe_ingredients or recipe_taste by explicitly mentioning calories, macros, and per-nutrient values.

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 implies when to use this tool: when a full nutrition breakdown is needed. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or name alternative tools for different nutritional needs (e.g., recipe_ingredients for just ingredient lists), so it lacks the full when/when-not guidance of a 5.

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