Get recipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the default slim payload and what the 'full' format unlocks (substitutes, properties, nutrition, image), which shapes whether an agent needs a follow-up call. It omits error behavior for a missing ID.

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 tight sentences with the default behavior front-loaded and the opt-in escalation second. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling the tool.

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 output schema, the description usefully compensates by describing the return shape at both detail levels. For a 2-parameter read tool with full annotations this is nearly complete; only missing-recipe behavior and pagination/limits are unaddressed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description does add genuine meaning for 'format' by enumerating what slim returns versus what full adds. The 'id' parameter, however, gets no elaboration beyond the schema's 'Recipe ID'.

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 by ID') and immediately clarifies the two response modes, which lets an agent distinguish it from list_recipes/search_recipes siblings by its ID-keyed, single-record scope. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you already have a recipe ID. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over search_recipes or list_recipes, nor any note about what to do if the ID is unknown. Adequate but leaves the alternative-selection reasoning to the agent.

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