get_recipe

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true) already establish safety. The description adds the contents of the response but no behavioral details like error conditions, pagination behavior, or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

One sentence, 11 words, front-loaded with verb and resource. No redundant information.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema; the description leaves max_results and page_number unexplained. While it lists the main return contents, the optional parameters and any pagination behavior are unaddressed, making the description incomplete.

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?

Schema coverage is only 33% (only recipe_id has a description). The description reinforces 'by ID' but does not explain max_results or page_number. Since the description must compensate for low schema coverage and does not, it falls short.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'detailed recipe information by ID' and lists contents (ingredients, directions, nutrition). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_recipes and get_recipe_types.

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?

Usage is implied: it's for when you already have a recipe ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_recipes or other recipe-related tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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