get_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one useful trait the schema cannot: missing data is returned as null rather than omitted. It does not address what happens for a nonexistent slug, whether access is scoped to the caller's own recipes, or whether the read is cached/rate-limited.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the returned content, with the null-handling caveat trailing where it belongs. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained and the description's field summary is a bonus. For a simple one-parameter read, though, the slug lookup semantics and not-found behavior are the remaining pieces an agent needs and they are absent.

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, slug, is never mentioned in the description, so an agent gets no guidance on its format (URL slug vs ID) or whether it must be an exact match. The description does nothing 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?

"Read structured ingredients, instructions, taxonomy and times" gives a specific verb and enumerates the resource contents, which clearly separates it from write siblings like update_recipe or create_recipe. It never says the resource is a recipe or that it targets a single one, relying on the tool name for that.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus search_recipes (discovery) or get_mealplan_week (plan context). Usage is only implied by the word "Read"; there are no alternatives or exclusions named.

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