Fetch a built recipe's detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral context by noting 'Browser-driven' and '~5-10s' latency, which are useful traits. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens on missing recipe, or whether it requires any existing session, leaving several behavioral aspects unstated.

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, information-dense sentence plus a short latency note. It avoids redundancy and front-loads the core action and output data, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable overview of inputs and expected outputs. It lists the key data points returned but does not specify format or error handling. Since no output schema exists, a bit more detail on the return structure would improve completeness, but the current level is adequate for a simple fetch tool.

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 only defines option_id as a string, but the description embeds it in the URL /recipe/<option_id>, giving it clear semantic meaning as the built recipe identifier. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates well by explaining how the parameter is used, though it does not enumerate possible values or origins.

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 clearly states the tool loads /recipe/<option_id> and extracts specific data (calories, macro split, gram-weight ingredient list, required supplement), using a specific verb 'load' and 'extract'. This distinguishes it from siblings like generate_recipe (generates) and calculate_calories (calculates), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies use for retrieving details of a built recipe, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_recipe or list_catalogue. It also does not mention preconditions such as needing an existing recipe id or a live browser session, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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