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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it is a bounded HTTPS GET and returns specific items, providing some context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects (though none expected).

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?

Single sentence with efficient wording, no redundancy. All necessary high-level information is front-loaded without extraneous details.

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 presence of an output schema and a single required parameter, the description is partially complete. However, it omits explanation of the optional parameters object and does not describe the output in detail. The existing output schema partially compensates, but the lack of parameter semantics is a notable gap.

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 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of the two parameters (recipeId and parameters). The meaning of recipeId is somewhat inferable from the tool's name and title, but the parameters object and its constraints are unexplained. The output schema exists but is separate; this is a gap.

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?

Description clearly states the action (execute), resource (retrieval contract), constraints (allowlisted, bounded, HTTPS GET), and outputs (extracted values, provenance, integrity receipt). It distinguishes from siblings by describing a specific execution action as opposed to search or verify.

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?

Description implies usage for executing a contract but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings search_data and verify. No explicit exclusions or alternative selection criteria are given.

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