Get recipe preferences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds useful detail about the returned content (preference prompts and settings), but it does not disclose behavioral details beyond that, such as whether it returns defaults, whether it depends on a current household context, or whether it can return empty values. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and every item listed contributes meaning. However, it is structured as a comma-separated inventory rather than a clear sentence, and the main action is left to the tool name instead of being front-loaded in the description. Still, it is efficient and free of fluff.

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, zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description largely suffices by identifying the key data fields. It does not explicitly state what the tool returns or how to use the result, but the combination of title, enumerated fields, and output schema makes the behavior reasonably clear.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is little for the description to explain. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the data returned rather than introducing irrelevant parameter guidance.

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 title and name clearly indicate a read operation for recipe preferences, and the description enumerates exactly what data is involved: household name, recipe and shopping preference prompts, plus settings. It distinguishes this from the sibling get_members, get_ingredients, and update_recipe_preferences, though the description itself lacks an explicit action verb and reads as a noun-phrase list rather than a full statement of behavior.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_recipe_preferences or get_connected_agents. The readOnlyHint annotation and the 'get' naming imply it is for reading, but the description does not state when this should be invoked or what would make a different tool more appropriate.

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