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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld=false and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description's contribution is a preview of the returned fields, which largely duplicates the existing output schema, and it says nothing about failure modes such as an unknown or stale id.

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, no waste, front-loaded with the resource and payload scope before the usage cue. Every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter read tool with a full output schema and covered annotations, the description supplies what is needed: scope, contents preview and trigger. Minor gap is the absence of any note about what happens when the id is invalid.

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 100% and the single id parameter is already documented as 'recipe id from a previous search'. The description's 'picks a recipe from a search' reinforces but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ('Get one recipe in full') and enumerates exactly what the payload contains: ingredients, instructions, times, yield, nutrition, source link. The phrase 'one recipe' separates it from the collection-oriented siblings like search_recipes and list_saved.

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 a clear trigger: the user picked a recipe from a search or asked how to make it. That distinguishes it from search_recipes well enough, but it names no explicit alternative or exclusion (e.g. 'do not use this to browse, use list_saved').

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