recipe_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description's real contribution is disclosing the returned fields, which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about what happens when a recipe is absent or how save/world scope alter the answer.

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?

It is a single front-loaded line with no filler, which is good. But it is compressed to the point of being cryptic ('unlock source', 'in/out per minute'), so brevity costs some interpretability.

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 4-parameter lookup with no output schema and half its parameters undocumented in the schema, the description should explain save/world scoping and the multiple-save case. As written, an agent can call it but cannot predict how save and world change the result.

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 50%: recipe_id and as_of are documented, while save and world carry no description anywhere. The tool description does not compensate at all - it never mentions save, world, or as_of, and 'unlock source' in the field list does not clarify what those parameters do.

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?

It names the resource and enumerates the fields returned (in/out per minute, machine, cycle, power, unlock source), so an agent knows this is the single-recipe detail lookup. It never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as search_recipes, compare_recipe_options, or unlocked_recipes, and the verb is implied rather than stated.

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 statement of when to reach for this versus list/search alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion. The word 'One' implies single-item scope, but the agent must infer that from a fragment rather than from explicit routing guidance.

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