get_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns full recipe details, which is helpful, but it does not address authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., 404 for invalid slug), or explicitly confirm a read-only operation, leaving some gaps.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no unnecessary words or redundancy. Every piece of information is relevant and contributes to clarity.

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 get-by-slug tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates the return value ('full recipe details including ingredients and instructions'). It could mention what happens if the slug does not exist or how to obtain a slug, but given the simplicity and schema coverage, it is largely 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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'slug' with the description 'Recipe slug (unique identifier)'. The tool description adds little beyond referring to 'by its slug', so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding significant param context.

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 function: 'Get a recipe by its slug.' It uses a specific verb (get), resource (recipe), and identifier (slug), and specifies the return content ('full recipe details including ingredients and instructions'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_recipes or delete_recipe.

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 when to use the tool: when you have a recipe slug and need full details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'use list_recipes to find slugs') or provide exclusion criteria, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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