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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the returned share.ask.recipes URL opens without an account, is unlisted/unindexed, and credits the original source. It does not clarify what happens on repeat calls (relevant given idempotentHint=false), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by intent examples, output behavior, and the eligibility constraint. Every sentence carries information, though the quoted example phrases add a little length without much extra signal.

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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the remaining gaps: eligibility limits, fallback behavior, and what the returned URL is. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 single id parameter is already documented as 'id of a recipe the user uploaded'. The description reinforces the same constraint but adds no new syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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+resource (create a share link for a recipe) and immediately scopes it to recipes the user uploaded. It also distinguishes itself from the general case by stating that for other recipes the source link is what to share, letting an agent differentiate this from get_recipe or search_recipes without opening a schema.

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 concrete trigger intents ("send this to my wife", "share it with Tom", "give me a link") and an explicit when-not rule (only uploaded recipes; otherwise share the source link). It stops short of naming a sibling tool as the alternative, so it is clear context rather than fully explicit routing.

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