Get 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. 'Full details' plus 'user's library' implies a read scoped to the caller's data, but nothing is said about what happens if the name/id is not found or whether lookup is case-sensitive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the resource and lookup keys come first and nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys the scope and the return ('full details'), which is nearly sufficient. It could say more about the shape of the returned details, but nothing critical to invocation is missing.

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% and the description only restates 'by name or id', which the schema already documents. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no format or matching semantics.

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 a specific verb (get) and resource (recipe) with scope ('one recipe in the user's library') and lookup keys ('by name or id'). This clearly separates it from list/search siblings like search_recipes, though those siblings are not named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch full details when you already know which recipe you want. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to search_recipes for fuzzy lookups, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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