get_recipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'get' but not confirmed), error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with mutation siblings.

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 with zero waste: 'Get recipe details by ID'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, appropriately sized for a simple tool, and every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 context: no annotations, no output schema, and siblings include mutation tools (e.g., create_recipe, update_recipe), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address safety (e.g., read-only vs. destructive), response details, or error cases, which are crucial for an AI agent to use it correctly alongside other tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'id' fully documented as 'Recipe ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as ID format or examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.

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 'Get recipe details by ID' clearly states the action (get) and resource (recipe details), specifying retrieval by ID. It distinguishes from siblings like list_recipes (which lists multiple) and create_recipe/update_recipe (which modify). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_meal_plan or other get-style tools, 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid recipe ID), exclusions (e.g., not for creating or listing), or comparisons to siblings like list_recipes (for browsing) or get_meal_plan (for related data). The description implies usage by ID but lacks explicit context.

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