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 is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing the shape of what comes back (costs broken into ingredient vs packaging/labor/overhead, per-serving nutrition), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits error behavior for an unknown recipe_id, which keeps it below a 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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the core promise ('One recipe in full') and then lists the payload, followed by a compact endpoint marker. No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the field enumeration supplies what the agent needs to decide whether this call returns the data it wants. Only missing piece is failure behavior when the id does not exist.

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?

A single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('ReciPal recipe id.'), so the schema already carries the load. The description adds no format or sourcing hint for recipe_id, 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?

States a specific retrieval action plus an enumerated payload: yield, servings, allergens, costs, ingredient list, tags, label path, nutrition. Implicitly separates itself from recipal_list_recipes by emphasizing 'one recipe in full', though no sibling is named outright.

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 only implied — an agent infers this is the tool for pulling a single recipe's full detail rather than a list. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to recipal_list_recipes / recipal_get_recipe_ingredient as alternatives.

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