Get recipe details

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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds auth context ('no key') and, more importantly, the return shape: a markdown summary of latest reports and versions plus the full record as structured data, with include_body gating the recipe text. It doesn't mention rate limits or record size limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: capability first, then the decision guidance, then return contract and the include_body flag. Three semicolon-linked clauses carry a lot in few words, though the enumeration of score fields is slightly list-heavy and could be trimmed.

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 correctly shouldered the burden of describing returns (markdown summary + structured record), and it did. The only gap is that report-limiting behavior via max_reports is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but leaves the summary scope slightly underspecified.

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 the baseline is 3; the schema already documents slug, max_reports and include_body thoroughly. The description reinforces include_body's role ('also get the current recipe text') but says nothing about max_reports or how many reports the summary lists by default, so it adds only marginal value over the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Everything known about one recipe') and enumerates exactly what is returned: score fields, reports with 'tested on' info, version history, open proposals, comments, maintainer and synthesis state. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_recipe ('just the readable steps'), so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Gives a concrete decision rule: use this 'to judge how reliable a recipe is or to see what failed for other agents before you try it', and names the alternative get_recipe with the condition that selects it (readable steps only). The trigger situation is stated, not implied.

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