recipe_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one useful trait: no authentication is needed. However, it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what happens with an invalid or unknown recipe_id (error vs empty), or any rate limits, which leaves the behavioral picture thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two brief sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents; no filler or redundancy. The sizing is defensible for a single-parameter lookup tool with an output schema.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the description correctly avoids that. But for a tool whose sole input must come from another endpoint, it omits the essential context of how to obtain a recipe_id, leaving a gap a caller must infer.

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?

Only one parameter exists, and its meaning (recipe identifier) is directly conveyed by the tool's framing as a fetch of a single recipe. The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description does carry the semantic load here, and it does so adequately even without stating an ID format or where IDs originate.

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 names a specific resource — a single recipe — and states what it contains (ingredients and steps), which distinguishes it reasonably from search_recipes or recipes_by_category. It lacks an action verb and never names the sibling tools it is meant to follow, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 at all: nothing says where a recipe_id comes from (search_recipes, recipes_by_category, my_recipes) or when to prefer this over those tools. The only extra information given, 'No login required', is an auth trait rather than usage selection.

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