shared_recipes_get_one

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers little. The GET endpoint and the 'read-only' keyword imply a safe read, but there is no mention of authentication or permission requirements for shared recipes, no error behavior (e.g., what happens for a non-shared or missing id), and no return-format context.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and short, but roughly half the text is a redundant keyword dump that restates the tool name and generic synonyms. Those tokens add no semantics and dilute the useful content, so the structure is wasteful rather than tight.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description still leaves critical gaps: it does not disambiguate from the many sibling recipe getters, does not describe the id, and does not cover access behavior. An agent could easily invoke the wrong recipe endpoint.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter item_id is never described in prose beyond appearing as '{item_id}' in the endpoint template. The description does not say it is a UUID, where the id comes from, or whether it identifies a shared-recipe record specifically, so it fails to compensate for the schema 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 verb and resource ('Get recipe') and supplies the HTTP endpoint, so the basic operation is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as get_recipe, recipe_crud_get_one, and get_shared_recipe, and it never explains what 'shared' means here (a recipe shared to the user vs. a publicly shared recipe). That ambiguity is exactly what an agent needs resolved.

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 statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The keyword list ('get, fetch, read, retrieve...') is search noise, not routing guidance, so an agent gets no help deciding between this and the many other recipe-getter siblings.

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