get_recipe_ingredient

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It indicates a read operation via 'Get,' but does not disclose the response shape, error behavior, authorization requirements, or any reliance on the recipe context. This is not misleading, but it adds little behavioral detail beyond the tool name.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to identifying the resource and the operation, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple read-only getter with two self-explanatory ID parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no mention of relationship to sibling tools like list_recipe_ingredients or get_ingredient, it leaves some context gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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 description does not explain either parameter. The names recipe_id and recipe_ingredient_id are reasonably clear, but the description does not clarify that recipe_ingredient_id identifies a line within the recipe or indicate where these IDs come from, so it does not compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a precise resource, 'one ingredient line on a recipe,' which clearly distinguishes it from list_recipe_ingredients (which returns multiple lines) and get_ingredient (which would fetch ingredient master data rather than a recipe-specific line). The singular phrasing signals exactly which resource the agent will retrieve.

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?

The singular 'Get one' implies this tool is for fetching a specific recipe ingredient line when both IDs are known, rather than listing all lines. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, mention how to obtain the required IDs, or rule out sibling tools, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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