Get recipe preferences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about when preferences are consumed (e.g., by the chef agent), freshness, or defaults when unset.

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?

It is a single fragment-packed sentence with no waste, and it front-loads the resource. However, it is a bare field list with no framing clause explaining what the whole thing is for, so structure is adequate rather than strong.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described — yet the description is essentially a restatement of the return shape, leaving the actual gaps (purpose, usage, relationship to update_recipe_preferences) unfilled. For a zero-parameter read tool this is minimally sufficient but not 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?

The schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The field enumeration is arguably about outputs rather than inputs and does not affect parameter semantics either way.

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 name and title carry the verb ('Get'), while the description only enumerates the returned fields (household name, recipe/shopping preference prompts, and settings). It gives a decent sense of the resource's contents, but never states plainly what the tool does or why one would call it, so it sits at vague-but-usable rather than a specific verb+resource statement.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the obvious sibling update_recipe_preferences (read vs. write). The agent must infer the read/write split purely from the tool names.

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