get_recipe_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get full recipe information') and lists key data points without redundancy. Every element (ingredients, instructions, etc.) adds value by specifying what information is included, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to address behavioral aspects like response format or error conditions. This makes it minimally viable but incomplete for reliable agent use without additional context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'recipe_id' clearly documented as 'The unique recipe identifier'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond implying it retrieves data for a recipe, which aligns with the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't detract either.

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 with specific verbs ('Get full recipe information') and resources ('recipe'), listing the types of information retrieved (ingredients, instructions, nutrition, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_menu' or 'rate_recipe' by focusing on detailed recipe data rather than menus or ratings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'select_meals' might also involve recipe details), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a recipe_id), exclusions (e.g., not for modifying recipes), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_menu' (which might list recipes) or 'rate_recipe' (which involves feedback). Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, lacking explicit context for selection.

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