get_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it explicitly labels the call as reading exact settings and enumerates the returned fields, making the read-only nature apparent. It omits error/authorization details, which are not central for a simple getter.

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 sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the operation and contents, the second adds a precise usage trigger. Every part earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple single-id getter with no output schema; the description adequately covers what the response contains and when to call it. No critical missing context remains for correct invocation.

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% and the sole parameter recipe_id is already described as 'ReciPal recipe ID.' The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the specific operation 'Get one recipe in full' and enumerates the returned content (nutrition, serving size, package yield, tags, label settings). This clearly distinguishes it from the nutrition-only sibling get_recipe_nutrition and other recipe-specific getters.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to use this tool 'to read a template recipe's exact settings before cloning it,' giving a concrete trigger. It does not enumerate when to prefer siblings such as get_recipe_nutrition or list_recipe_ingredients, but the use case is clear enough for selection.

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