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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, local-database, and non-destructive behavior, so the description focuses on disclosing return content: full recipe sections plus database-matched cultures with shop, price, price per liter, and card link, plus optional 'dziennik warzeń' when present. This conditional availability and the mixing of recipe data with joined commerce data is genuinely useful context the annotations do not provide.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that opens with the resource and scope before listing contents. The enumeration of recipe sections is long but each item conveys what the agent will receive, so it earns its space despite being a single run-on sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing return values — and it does so thoroughly, covering recipe sections, joined culture data, and the optional author batch log. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly appears to be 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 coverage is 100%, so the single 'nazwa' parameter is already documented as 'name or id from szukaj_przepisow results'. The description repeats that dual name/id acceptance and adds example values ('mozzarella', 'gouda', 'ser topiony'), which helps slightly but stays at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 it returns a complete recipe for a specific cheese by name or id, and enumerates the contents (milk, starter culture, coagulant, dosing, steps, salting, aging, tips). It does not explicitly name the sibling search tool (szukaj_przepisow), so differentiation is only implicit through the word 'Pełny' and the id reference.

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?

It implies the tool is used when you already have a specific cheese name or id, but it never says when to use this versus szukaj_przepisow or szukaj_kultur, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable from the phrase 'po nazwie albo id' but not stated.

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