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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, and the description adds a trait the annotations cannot express: large fields and collections are shortened in the response. That truncation caveat is real behavioral value, though it is not quantified (what size triggers shortening, which fields).

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 sentence, front-loaded with the usage trigger, with the truncation caveat attached rather than buried. Slightly awkward phrasing ('explicitly shortened') but no padding or redundancy.

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?

An output schema is present, so return values need not be explained, annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema fully documents the lone parameter. The description's remaining burden — disclosing that payloads may be truncated — is met.

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 recipeRef parameter is fully documented (opaque reference, rcp_ pattern) in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantics about the parameter, 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 the resource and cardinality precisely: retrieve a single private recipe, which separates it from the plural find_recipes sibling. It never names the alternative explicitly, so differentiation is implied by 'one' rather than stated.

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?

'Use this when you need one private recipe' gives a positive trigger condition but no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., 'not for searching — use find_recipes'). Without the qualifier that the ref must come from a prior list/search call, the agent must infer the workflow.

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