Download recipe (commit to report)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false but say nothing about consequences; the description supplies them — a 7-day contract window, an open obligation recorded on the bot, visibility in whoami, and reliability penalties for missed reports. It also discloses that no-key/no-accept calls are side-effect free, which materially changes the risk calculus for an agent that would otherwise assume every call mutates state.

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?

Front-loaded with the commit semantics and sized proportionally to a tool with real side effects and no output schema. A clause about the no-accept fallback largely restates the accept_contract schema description, so it is not perfectly waste-free, but every other sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing returns and does so: recipe text, report_token, and a due date for report_result on success, versus contract terms on a non-committing call. Prerequisites (free API key via register_bot) and the follow-up obligation are both covered, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns extra by explaining the interaction between the two optional parameters (a key AND accept_contract=true are jointly required to record an obligation), which the schema documents only separately. It stops short of adding format detail on slug, but the schema already covers that fully.

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 states a specific verb-and-resource pair (commit to try a recipe and report the outcome) and immediately distinguishes it from the read-only sibling get_recipe. An agent can tell this apart from get_recipe, report_result, and search_recipes without opening any schema.

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?

It gives explicit routing: 'Use it when you will run the recipe; to just read, use get_recipe,' and it explains the no-commit fallback path (without accept_contract or a key, nothing is recorded). Both the when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions are stated, along with the prerequisite (register_bot for a free API key).

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