Get recipe sharing preferences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful rollout/version gating context ('Available with the 6.0 library rollout') but says nothing about return format or pagination.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no waste. The rollout note is slightly cryptic but occupies little space.

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 no-arg, read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough: it reads the sharing disclosure and current permission, and annotations carry the safety profile. Return-value detail is thin but the title and description together make the payload reasonably predictable.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the 100% coverage is trivially satisfied. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (sharing disclosure and current permission), which clearly distinguishes it from the write-oriented sibling prepare_set_recipe_sharing. It doesn't name the sibling explicitly, but 'before changing sharing' implies the pairing.

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?

'before changing sharing' gives a clear workflow trigger for when to call this tool, effectively positioning it as a prerequisite read ahead of the mutation. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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