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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the operation is safe and non-mutating. The description adds what the output includes (macros, micros, etc.) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error conditions, response size, or dependency on recipe existence. This is adequate but not rich beyond 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 front-loaded with a clear, informative first sentence. The TRIGGERS list is somewhat verbose but provides actionable query examples, which is valuable for an AI agent. Every line adds use-case context without fluff, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing much.

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's simplicity (1 param, no output schema) and the annotations covering safety, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool returns (macros, micros, per-serving, ingredient-level calories), which substitutes for a missing output schema. It does not mention error cases or prerequisites, but these are implicitly covered by the parameter description.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter recipeSlug, with a clear description and examples. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics; it just refers to "recipe" in general. Since the schema already carries the burden, a 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 what the tool does: "Get a deep nutritional analysis for a recipe" with specific details on macros, micros, per-serving breakdown, and ingredient-level calories. It is specific about the resource (recipe) and scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like recipes_get_nutrition or nutrition_compare, though the term "deep" and "ingredient-level" imply a distinct, comprehensive analysis.

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 provides explicit triggers such as "nutrition breakdown for X" and "macro breakdown of X", giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., nutrition_compare for comparing recipes), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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