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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the returned data fields, which helps set expectations, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention error behavior for missing recipe IDs, or note any permissions or side effects.

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 efficiently communicates the tool's scope and return contents. Every element in the enumeration adds useful information without wasted words.

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 get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return contents and clearly signals that this is for exactly one recipe. It lacks explicit error/edge-case behavior and doesn't describe the response structure, but those are secondary for such a straightforward tool.

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 0%, so the description was expected to compensate for the single recipe_id parameter. It does not mention what value to pass or clarify the parameter at all; it only relies on the self-explanatory name recipe_id and the tool name get_recipe.

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 states that the tool returns the full details of a single recipe and enumerates the included fields, which conveys its purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_ingredients or get_instructions, though 'full details' implies a broader scope.

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 'Full details for one recipe' implies when to use it: when a complete recipe record is needed. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer more specific siblings such as get_ingredients or get_instructions, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions.

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