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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the full field composition of each returned line (important since there is no output schema) and naming the underlying endpoint. It omits error behavior for unknown recipe ids and ordering, which keeps it from 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?

Two sentences: the payload description is front-loaded, the follow-up hint comes second, and the raw endpoint is appended last. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 compensates by enumerating returned fields, and with one read-only param the invocation surface is fully covered. Only the failure mode for a nonexistent recipe_id is left unstated.

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% and the single recipe_id parameter is already documented as 'ReciPal recipe id' with bounds. The description only implies the parameter through 'of one recipe'. With high coverage and one trivial required param, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (one recipe's ingredient lines) and enumerates exactly what each line contains: ingredient id, name, quantity, unit, waste %, total grams, label display name. This clearly separates it from recipal_get_recipe_ingredient (single line) and recipal_get_recipe (recipe header).

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?

'Use the line ids with recipal_update_recipe_ingredient' gives concrete follow-up guidance, telling the agent this listing is the lookup step before an update. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like recipal_get_recipe_ingredient, but the read-then-update flow is unambiguous.

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