read_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads data (implying a read-only operation) and returns comprehensive fields, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens if ID/title doesn't exist), authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. It adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first specifies the action and inputs, the second details the output scope. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently structured, making every sentence earn 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the purpose and output scope but lacks behavioral details like error cases or return structure. For a read tool with moderate complexity, it's minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (id and title) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by reiterating 'by ID or exact title' and implying these are alternatives, but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or precedence rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Read full recipe data by ID or exact title' specifies the verb (read), resource (recipe data), and input methods. It distinguishes from 'search_recipes' by emphasizing exact matching rather than search, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_recipe' or 'format_fraction'.

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 implies usage context by stating 'by ID or exact title' and mentioning it returns 'all recipe fields', which suggests this is for retrieving complete records. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'search_recipes' (which likely handles partial matches) or other siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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