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

The description focuses on the return value but does not mention error handling, side effects, or the read-only nature of the operation. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, and these aspects are left implicit, though the 'get' wording suggests a safe read.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences, and directly conveys the core functionality without extraneous detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the main output content (section sequence, purpose, source code, optional style) but does not provide a formal output schema or details on possible formats. For a recipe tool, this is reasonably complete, though more specifics could enhance clarity.

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?

Both parameters are described with references to source lists (list_recipes and list_styles), which clarifies what values are expected. The descriptions are brief but sufficient for the user to understand the parameter roles.

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 that the tool returns a page recipe including the section sequence with purpose per section and the complete source code of all sections, as well as the optional brand style. This is specific and distinguishes it from other getter tools.

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?

The description indicates that the 'name' parameter should be a recipe slug from list_recipes and 'style' from list_styles, giving useful context on valid inputs. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_component, but the recipe-specific wording makes the primary use case clear.

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