recipe_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does disclose a notable behavior: the tool accepts a display name and resolves it internally, which is nontrivial. Yet it omits other behavioral details such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the name is not found), case sensitivity, or the exact structure of the returned data. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 first sentence is a model of conciseness, delivering the core purpose in under 10 words. The second sentence is longer and argumentative, defending the design choice to accept display names. While it adds useful context for an AI agent, it could be trimmed without losing essential guidance. Overall, it earns its place but is slightly verbose.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description gives a good sense of the return fields (rates, machine, power, unlock source) and the accepted input. It does not mention error cases, but the tool is inherently simple and the description covers the key aspects. A short note on not-found behavior would make it complete.

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 provides only a parameter name and type with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by stating that the parameter accepts either a class ID or a display name, and even explains the trade-off. This is critical semantic information that the schema lacks, making the parameter's behavior completely clear.

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 purpose: providing exact numbers (rates, machine, power, unlock source) for a single recipe. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_recipes (which searches) or compare_recipe_options (which compares multiple recipes). The scope is specific to one recipe's details.

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 intended use case is implicit but clear: when you need exact numbers for a specific recipe. The description also explains that you can pass either a class ID or a display name, avoiding unnecessary round trips, and references match_recipes as an existing pattern for resolution. However, it does not explicitly say when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives (e.g., for searching or comparison).

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