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

Annotations already declare the read-only, non-destructive, open-world nature, so the description adds useful behavioral context by stating that only currently active costs are returned and that there is one entry per ingredient. It also lists the returned fields, which is valuable because no output schema 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 description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the scope and returned fields, followed by the endpoint. Every element earns its place, with no redundant restatement of the title.

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 paginated read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete because it states the active-cost scope and the returned fields. It could be stronger by clarifying how this differs from the sibling list_ingredient_costs tool, but nothing essential for invocation 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% for both page and per_page, so the schema already carries parameter semantics. The description adds no additional parameter detail, which is acceptable but not enriching.

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 clearly identifies the resource as the currently active cost of every ingredient and specifies one entry per ingredient, along with the returned fields. It is understandable without opening the schema, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling recipal_list_ingredient_costs, which may return historical or all costs.

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 'currently active' implies when this tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus recipal_list_ingredient_costs or recipal_get_ingredient_cost. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are named.

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