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 safety profile is known. The description adds context that the tool is 'AI-powered' and provides 'estimated calorie savings', which are useful behavioral traits, but it doesn't disclose additional traits like response format or accuracy limitations. This is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured: a concise main sentence followed by a useful TRIGGERS list. Every line earns its place with practical examples. It is somewhat longer than minimal but appropriately so for the added trigger guidance.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema and good annotations, the description covers the core purpose, output nature (suggestions with calorie savings), and usage via triggers. It could mention what the response looks like, but this is not essential given the simplicity and annotation coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, which already well-documents recipeSlug and the goal enum with descriptions. Thus no extra value is provided, but the schema is sufficient.

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 function: 'Get AI-powered suggestions to make a recipe healthier' and enumerates specific outputs (ingredient swaps, cooking technique changes, portion adjustments, calorie savings). This distinguishes it from siblings like cooking_get_substitutions by covering broader health improvement, not just substitutions.

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 with example user phrasings such as 'make X healthier' and 'reduce calories in X', giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions/alternatives for a perfect score.

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