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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower, and the description adds what a caller cannot get from annotations: that lab results are Stackcut's own (not customer results), what is explicitly out of scope, and a detailed data-handling disclosure (arguments stored, keys hashed, billing/validation sources excluded, no IPs) plus a 'don't send personal data' warning. It stops short of describing retrieval/pagination behavior, hence 4 rather than 5.

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 opening sentence is dense but well front-loaded, enumerating exactly what the response contains. The trailing privacy/telemetry passage, however, is long boilerplate that is not specific to invoking get_recipe and inflates the definition considerably.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and discharges it well, detailing replacement paths, modeled savings, costs, playbooks, sources and lab results. Combined with the fully documented id parameter and the stated privacy constraints, an agent has what it needs to call it correctly; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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% and the single parameter already documents its origin and format ('Recipe id from search_recipes, e.g. crm-pipeline'). The description adds no syntax, constraint, or edge-case meaning beyond that, 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Full detail for one recipe from search_recipes', and immediately names the sibling that produces the id. An agent can distinguish it from search_recipes and get_workflow_recipe without opening either schema.

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?

It implies the workflow ('from search_recipes') by tying the id to the search tool, which is genuine routing information. But it never states when to prefer this over get_workflow_recipe, get_exit_plan, or get_my_plan, nor any precondition beyond the id, so usage is only implied.

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