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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral context beyond that: Stackcut stores tool-call arguments to improve recommendations, hashes account keys, never stores IP addresses, and distinguishes Stackcut lab results from customer results. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the first sentence efficiently enumerates the rich set of return content. However, the privacy/data-retention disclosure is long and parenthetical, stretching one idea into a dense block that is harder to parse than necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining what the tool returns, and it does so thoroughly: savings, costs, setup, out-of-scope items, pre-switch checks, cancellation steps, playbooks, sources, and lab results. It also covers data-handling expectations and what not to send, making the definition complete for a fetch-by-id tool.

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%: the single required id parameter is fully documented with an explanation and example ('Recipe id from search_recipes, e.g. 'crm-pipeline''). The description reinforces that the id comes from search_recipes but adds no new format, constraints, or syntax beyond the schema, so 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Full detail for one recipe from search_recipes,' with an explicit list of what the detail includes. This distinguishes it from search_recipes and the sibling get_workflow_recipe, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 phrase 'from search_recipes' implies the correct workflow: first search, then fetch a recipe's full detail. It also warns 'don't send personal data or secrets,' which is a practical usage constraint. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or giving when-not-to-use conditions, so it is clear but not fully explicit.

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