Show a recipe

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the ingredient 'kind' taxonomy and the non-obvious default that only 'needed' ingredients are selected for the cart. It stops short of covering error behaviour (e.g., invalid recipe_id) or auth needs.

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 front-loaded with the resource then the returned fields, with no filler sentences. The ingredient-kind explanation is long but each clause conveys distinct semantics an agent needs in order to interpret 'needed' vs 'alternative'.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does so thoroughly by listing fields and per-portion nutrition. Remaining gaps are minor: not-found behaviour, and whether amounts or Picnic products can be missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already states the id's origin (search_recipes or create_recipe), so the description need not duplicate it. With only one fully documented parameter, there is little left to clarify, though the description adds nothing directly about recipe_id.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Show a recipe') and immediately enumerates the fields returned, so there is no ambiguity about what the tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_recipes or create_recipe, which keeps it below a 5.

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 only implied by the resource ('Show a recipe') and by the schema note that recipe_id comes from search_recipes or create_recipe. The description itself never states when to call this versus search_recipes or add_recipe_to_cart, nor any prerequisites.

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