get_shared_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond a keyword list. It does not state that this is a read-only unauthenticated/token-based access path, whether the token can be revoked, or what the response contains. The only hint of read-only behavior is buried in an SEO-style keyword list, which is not an intentional disclosure.

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 clogged with an SEO keyword dump ('Keywords: get_shared_recipe, get shared recipe, get shared, fetch shared...') that repeats the tool name in every permutation. The actual useful content (endpoint and parameter) is a single line, so the signal-to-noise ratio is poor.

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 tool with a required token parameter, 0% schema documentation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It leaves the agent without the semantics of token_id or any behavioral context needed to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented token_id parameter, but it does not. It never explains that token_id is a UUID4 shared-recipe token, nor where a caller would obtain one or what happens with an invalid/expired token.

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 essentially restates the tool name: 'Get Shared Recipe — Recipe: Shared. Get shared.' It does include the endpoint GET /api/recipes/shared/{token_id}, which confirms it fetches a shared recipe by token, but the prose adds no discriminating information versus siblings like get_recipe or shared_recipes_get_one.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes get_recipe, shared_recipes_get_one, and shared_recipes_get_all, but the description never distinguishes the token-based shared access flow from those. No when-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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