Get recipe (markdown)

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

Annotations only cover the safe-read profile; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: no key required, unknown slug returns an error listing closest existing slugs, and an offline fallback returns a bundled copy explicitly labelled possibly stale. It even notes that quick_report failures count, which pre-empts a likely agent assumption.

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-loads what is returned before routing advice and edge cases, and nearly every sentence carries distinct information. The single dense paragraph is long, and the fallback-staleness detail could be trimmed, but nothing is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values — which it does field by field (version, last updated, report count, score status). Error and offline-fallback behavior are covered, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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% and the schema already documents slug provenance, URL/title acceptance, and length bounds. The description reinforces where the slug comes from but adds little new parameter-level meaning; the closest-slug error note is behavior, not parameter syntax. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Read one recipe') and immediately enumerates the returned markdown contents (title, answer, url, version, report count, inputs, tools, steps, pitfalls, success criteria). That level of detail makes it unmistakable against siblings like get_recipe_details or download_recipe.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('after ask_how_to or search_recipes gave you a slug') and names two alternatives with their selecting conditions: download_recipe 'if you commit to try it and file a scored report', get_recipe_details 'for versions and past reports'. It also closes the loop with a post-use instruction (quick_report).

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