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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds a benefit statement ('Saves time and reduces food waste') and trigger examples but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as output format or processing time, which is acceptable given annotation coverage.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by a practical trigger list. Every sentence earns its place—the benefit statement and triggers add valuable guidance without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, full schema coverage, and strong annotations. The description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and usage triggers. While no output schema exists, the description implies a text guide, which is adequate for this simple read-only tool.

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 single parameter recipeSlug is fully documented in the input schema with a description and example ('chicken-pho'), providing 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 provides a 'meal prep guide' covering batch cooking, storage, and reheating, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like cooking_get_tips or recipes_get by focusing on meal prep specifically, and the additional triggers reinforce the unique scope.

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 includes a detailed TRIGGERS section with explicit example phrases for when to use the tool, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the trigger examples effectively guide the agent on appropriate invocation.

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