households_recipe_actions_get_one

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. The keyword "read-only" hints at a safe read, but nothing states authentication requirements, error behavior (e.g., missing item_id), or pagination. For a zero-annotation tool this is a thin 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 useful content ("Get recipe action") is two words; the rest is a large keyword-stuffing block that duplicates the name many times. This is padding rather than earned conciseness, though the core intent is at least front-loaded.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description should carry more. It leaves an agent without the behavioral, parameter, or return-shape context needed to invoke the tool confidently, so it is incomplete for the tool's needs.

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% and the single required parameter item_id (uuid4) is not explained in the description. The description adds no meaning about what item_id identifies or where it comes from, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get recipe action"), so an agent can tell this fetches a single recipe action. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like households_recipe_actions_get_all, create_one, update_one, or delete_one beyond the tool name itself. The core statement is essentially a restatement of the title, which is why it lands at minimum-viable rather than clear.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_all or the other recipe-action verbs. The keyword list implies retrieval but gives no decision criteria for choosing this over a sibling.

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