Get a recipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what content is returned, but does not mention error handling, auth requirements, or side effects. Since the annotations carry the main behavioral burden, the description adds moderate value without contradiction.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Full details for one recipe') and then lists the included data fields with no filler. Every word adds value, making it concise and well-structured.

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 read-only tool with one required parameter and an existing output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The only missing piece is explicit guidance on how to obtain a recipe_id (e.g., via search_recipes), but this is inferable from sibling tool names and does not impede 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?

The only parameter is recipe_id, and the schema provides no description for it (0% coverage). The description mentions 'one recipe' and its page link, implying recipe_id is the identifier to fetch, but it does not explicitly state that the parameter is the recipe's ID or explain how to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory, so the gap is manageable.

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 identifies the action ('get') and the resource ('one recipe'), and enumerates the specific detail fields returned: ingredients, steps, servings, source, tags, ratings, comments, cooked count, and page link. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_favorite_recipes, get_recipe_preferences, and search_recipes, which have narrower scopes.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when the agent needs full details for a single recipe. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is stated plainly enough that an agent can infer this is the appropriate tool for retrieving comprehensive recipe data by ID.

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