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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the result is a share.ask.recipes URL, works without an account, is unlisted and not indexed, credits source and licence, and carries schema.org Recipe markup. It also states the Cookidoo sharing restriction, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint not captured by annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then adds usage examples, access scope, return behavior, and the Cookidoo exclusion. Despite being a dense paragraph, each sentence adds practical value and there is no wasted framing.

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 sharing tool, the definition covers selection intent, access scope, output URL characteristics, privacy/indexing behavior, machine-readability, and the main exclusion. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and understand what the returned link enables.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics by clarifying that the ID can refer to recipes the user can read, including corpus and household uploads, though it does not explicitly reconcile this with the schema's narrower phrase 'id of a recipe the user uploaded.'

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a share link for a recipe.' It immediately distinguishes the tool's output as a public share URL rather than a recipe read or save operation, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 gives explicit trigger intents such as 'send this to my wife', 'give me a link', and 'add this to MacroFactor', then states the readable-recipe scope and a clear exclusion for Cookidoo imports. This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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