get_recipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that real photos are not provided as content to the agent, only rendered in a card, and instructs not to describe or substitute photos. It also lists what fields will be returned. It lacks error/edge-case behavior, but for a read-only get operation, this is a meaningful disclosure that goes beyond obvious behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The additional sentences about MCP Apps and photo handling are useful and directly inform agent behavior, though the MCP Apps detail could be seen as slightly verbose. Overall each sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool, the description covers the input source, return content, and a critical behavioral caveat (photos not available). It doesn't mention not-found errors or permissions, but those are less critical given the simple read-only nature and no output schema. It is complete enough for effective use.

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 is sparse (one integer `recipe_id`, 0% coverage), but the description compensates by specifying 'by its numeric id from search_recipes'. This tells the agent the id is numeric and comes from the search tool's results, which is valuable beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 states a precise action: 'Get one recipe's full detail' with a specific resource (recipe by numeric id) and lists the included content (ingredients, instructions, notes, times, tags). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like search_recipes (which lists) and get_recipe_widget_data (which returns widget data, not full detail).

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 phrase 'from search_recipes' clearly instructs the agent to obtain the recipe_id from the search tool, establishing a sequencing guideline. It does not explicitly exclude get_recipe_widget_data, but the context of needing full detail vs. widget data is implied. The photo guidance also tells the agent how to handle the response, adding practical usage direction.

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