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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds what fields are shown ('Shows prep time, cook time, servings, difficulty, and ingredients'), but it does not disclose behaviors like error handling for missing recipes, response format, or any side effects. This is adequate but not rich, hence a 3.

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: one clear sentence stating the core function, followed by a structured TRIGGERS block with six example utterances. Every sentence earns its place, and the front-loaded main sentence ensures immediate comprehension. No fluff or redundant restatement.

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 has only one parameter, no output schema, and annotations that cover safety and idempotency. The description explains what the tool shows (the recipe attributes), and the trigger list provides sufficient context for when to use it. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description for recipeSlugs is fully explicit ('Array of 2-5 recipe slugs to compare (e.g. ['chicken-pho', 'beef-pho'])'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description only repeats the notion of comparing two or more recipes, which adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. 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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('recipes') and explicitly lists the comparison dimensions (prep time, cook time, servings, difficulty, ingredients), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool nutrition_compare, which focuses on nutritional values rather than side-by-side recipe attributes.

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 TRIGGERS section provides concrete natural-language examples that indicate when to invoke this tool ('compare X and Y recipes', 'X vs Y recipe', 'which recipe is faster'). While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the trigger list gives clear usage context, so this is above the minimum but not a full 5.

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