get_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'get' strongly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it does not modify data or have side effects. Given the presence of create/update/delete siblings, the read-only nature is inferable but not stated.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous words. It includes the resource type, the lookup method, and the expected return content (directions, ingredients, etc.) in a compact form.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It does not mention error handling or pagination, but these are not critical for a single-recipe fetch. The description is complete enough for typical usage.

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?

The schema provides only the type and range for the id parameter with no description. The description adds necessary meaning by clarifying that 'id' refers to the recipe's identifier. However, it does not explain the range constraints (min/max) or what happens if an invalid id is provided, though the schema already defines the numeric limits.

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 clearly states the action (get) and the resource (a single recipe by id), distinguishing it from list_recipes which presumably returns multiple recipes. The inclusion of 'single' and 'by id' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 description implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when you need one recipe by id) versus list_recipes for multiple recipes, but it does not explicitly state 'use this instead of list_recipes when you have a specific id.' The implication is strong enough for a clear inference.

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