get_recipe

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent hints, and the description adds useful behavioral context by detailing the return content (grain bill percentages, hop schedule, mash/fermentation steps, target figures, dual unit systems) and the effect of omitting sections. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 tightly structured with Args and Returns sections, using only essential sentences. Every line adds value, from the purpose statement to parameter details and return summary.

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?

With rich annotations and an output schema present, the description still provides complete context: it covers both parameters, return content, and section selection. No critical information is missing for a simple read-only fetch operation.

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 descriptions, so the description fully compensates by clearly explaining recipe_id (source from list_recipes) and sections (allowed values and default behavior). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one recipe'), and distinguishes it from siblings like list_recipes by focusing on fetching a single recipe with optional section filtering.

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 usage by noting recipe_id comes from list_recipes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The 'sections' parameter hints at selective fetching, but usage context is largely inferred.

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