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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing that recipes are original and strictly raw/no-cook/vegan, and that nutrition is computed from ingredient food rows traced back to national datasets cited by lookup_food. This gives useful context about data provenance and content characteristics. No contradictions found.

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 focused paragraph that front-loads the core purpose ('Get one Heathy recipe in full') and then adds supporting details about contents, recipe origin, nutrition computation, and how to find a recipe. Every sentence contributes information, though it is slightly dense; it could be trimmed without losing value.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description explicitly lists the return contents (ingredients, method, per-serving nutrition, allergens, carbon footprint), which is the critical information for an agent. It also explains nutrition provenance. It does not mention error behavior or not-found handling, but for a read-only, idempotent single-item get tool, that is a minor gap.

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 schema already describes the single 'recipe' parameter as a slug or name with an example. The description largely restates this ('Accepts a slug or the recipe name') and points to search_recipes for discovery, but it doesn't add new format details or semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 ('Get one Heathy recipe in full') and enumerates the contents (ingredients with food slugs and gram weights, method, per-serving nutrition, allergens, carbon footprint). It also distinguishes itself from search_recipes by explicitly noting it accepts a slug or name, showing the agent which tool to use for retrieval vs discovery.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to use search_recipes when it needs to find a recipe ('use search_recipes to find one'), creating a clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use boundary. It also describes the recipe characteristics (original, raw/no-cook, vegan) so the agent can decide if this tool satisfies the query.

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