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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds the underlying GET endpoint path, which is useful mapping context, but it does not mention error behavior such as a missing id or permissions.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, and the core lookup behavior is front-loaded. The endpoint path is compact and does not distract from the purpose.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It implies the return value ('one ingredient cost entry') and does not need an output schema explanation, though more detail about not-found behavior could help.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single ingredient_cost_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that the lookup is 'by id' and adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 retrieval action for a single ingredient cost entry by id, which clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like recipal_list_ingredient_costs. It is clear but does not explicitly name the alternatives or explain the scope difference in prose.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by id': fetch one entry when you know its identifier. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_ingredient_costs or get_ingredient, so the agent must infer the selection criteria.

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