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

Annotations already cover the read-only/non-destructive profile, and the description adds value beyond them: it discloses the returned fields (allergens, units, headline nutrition per 100 g), flags that full=true is large, and states archived records are excluded by default. That default-hiding behavior is the kind of thing an agent needs to know and is not in the annotations.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the return contents come first and the two non-obvious parameter behaviors follow. Nothing is redundant enough to cut.

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 does the necessary work of summarizing the return shape (allergens, units, nutrition per 100 g) and the effect of full=true. Only minor gaps remain, such as not stating the envelope/pagination reply shape, which the schema partially implies via next_page.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including the archived enum and pagination. The description only restates two of them (full, archived) with no added syntax or defaults beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List your own ingredients (custom and subrecipe ingredients)') and even scopes what 'own' means, which implicitly separates it from recipe-ingredient tools. It does not name a sibling to route against, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Gives useful in-tool guidance ('Set full=true for every nutrient', 'Archived ones are hidden unless asked for'), but never says when to choose this over recipal_get_ingredient or recipal_list_recipe_ingredients. Usage is implied by scope only.

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