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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral detail beyond that by explaining the return shape: title, ingredients, instructions, notes, photo URL, and entry_kind for non-recipe entries. This is useful context that the annotation alone does not provide.

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 deliver the core purpose, id provenance, output fields, and mixed-type behavior without redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description carries the responsibility of explaining both input and output. It fully covers the input source, the fields returned, and how non-recipe entries behave. No critical information is missing for an agent to call this tool 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?

The schema already documents the single id parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining where ids come from (search_recipes or list_conceits) and confirming that the id refers to a general entry, not only a recipe. This provenance helps the agent supply the correct value.

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 a specific action (fetch full details) and resource (one entry by id), and explicitly clarifies that this applies to both recipes and non-recipe entries. It differentiates itself from search_recipes and list_conceits by saying ids come from those tools, so an agent knows exactly what this tool is for.

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 explains that ids come from search_recipes or list_conceits results, which gives clear context on when to invoke this tool. It doesn't explicitly list exclusion criteria or name alternatives, but the source-of-id guidance is enough to route the agent correctly in most cases.

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