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 established. The description adds the scope of the response (ingredients, instructions, etc.) but says nothing about error behavior, invalid IDs, or response formatting. This adds moderate value beyond annotations, but not enough for a 4.

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 purpose sentence, followed by a structured list of trigger phrases. While the trigger list is longer than necessary, it is organized and useful for an AI agent, making it efficient rather than bloated.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description provides sufficient context for selection and invocation. It could benefit from mentioning what happens if the slug/ID is invalid, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with the slugOrId parameter fully documented as a URL slug or UUID. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Get full details') and resource ('specific recipe'), and enumerates the included components (ingredients, instructions, nutrition, tips, photo), distinguishing it from more specialized sibling tools like recipes_get_nutrition or recipes_get_dietary.

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 explicitly lists user phrasings that should invoke this tool, providing clear when-to-use context. It does not, however, explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools like recipes_get_nutrition, which would make it a 5.

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