Read a recipe

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: a premium recipe without Fitatu Premium yields a forbidden error, 'own' flags a private user recipe, and 'deleted'/'per_serving: null' edge states are disclosed. Return-format detail is largely redundant with the output schema, keeping it out of the top band.

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 scope statement is front-loaded and there is no boilerplate, but the bulk is a long run-on enumeration of return fields (food_id, quantity, measure_id, weight_g, energy_kcal...) that an output schema already defines. That verbosity dilutes the one or two genuinely valuable caveats buried inside.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it still covers the key call-time concerns: which ids are valid, the Premium auth gate, and private-vs-catalog ownership. Nothing essential to a correct single fetch is missing, though the field-by-field inventory is surplus.

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% for the single recipe_id parameter, so the baseline is 3; the description adds the catalog-vs-own scope but nothing about id format, origin, or failure modes beyond what the schema description already supplies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one recipe in full') and immediately scopes it ('from the catalog or the user's own'), which distinguishes it from search_recipes/get_my_foods list tools and from get_food_measures. An agent can identify this as the single-record recipe fetch without opening the schema.

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 rather than stated: the description contrasts what get_recipe returns with what create_recipe and update_recipe consume, and notes the Premium precondition, but never says explicitly when to call this versus search_recipes or get_my_foods. The id-source guidance lives in the schema, not the description.

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