Get a recipe

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), it explains scaling behavior in detail: the scaled/rounded/unscaled flags, why to trust them (avoiding '2.4 eggs'), rescaling of yield, and the requirement to cite attribution. This adds significant behavioral context not available in annotations or schema.

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 multi-sentence but well-organized: purpose first, then input guidance, then scaling behavior, then attribution. Every sentence provides needed detail; it's slightly long but appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values. It covers input selection (id/url), optional rescaling, the meaning of scaling flags, yield semantics, and attribution – all essential for correct use. No major gaps.

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 adds meaningful context about the 'servings' parameter (rescaling behavior and flag semantics) and the id/url relation (preference and fallback). This goes beyond schema descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 starts with 'Read one Marmiton recipe' – a specific verb and resource – and lists the fields returned (ingredients, steps, times, category, rating, nutrition). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly referring to search_recipes for finding recipes and focusing on reading a single 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?

The description gives clear context on when to use: provide an id from search_recipes or a marmiton.org URL, and optionally set servings to rescale. It doesn't explicitly say 'when not to use' or name scale_ingredients as an alternative, but the usage context is well defined.

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