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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful return-value context ('calories, macros, dietary labels') but does not disclose potential edge cases like invalid recipe slugs or error behavior. Thus it adds some value beyond annotations but not extensive behavioral detail.

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 useful trigger list. The trigger list is somewhat repetitive but serves a functional role in guiding the agent. It is not overly verbose, and every section earns its place.

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, read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states the input (recipeSlug via schema), the output (calories, macros, dietary labels), and clear usage triggers. No critical information 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 input schema fully describes the single parameter 'recipeSlug' with type, maxLength, and examples. The description reinforces that it targets a 'specific recipe' but does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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's function: 'Get detailed nutrition information for a specific recipe' and lists specific return types (calories, macros, dietary labels). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recipes_get_dietary or nutrition_analyze by being specifically tied to a recipe.

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 clear examples of when to use the tool ('nutrition for X', 'calories in X', 'is X healthy'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks the exclusion/alternative guidance needed for a 5.

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