Read one recipe

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description discloses significant behaviors: the response 'kind' can be 'recipe' or 'collection', 'source_shape' indicates whether ingredients came from structured data or article text, rescaling is skipped without a stated serving size, and tool-lines are never multiplied. These details greatly exceed the annotation metadata.

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 dense paragraph but logically proceeds through key facts: what it reads, the 'kind' distinction, 'source_shape' meanings, servings behavior, and the tool-line rule. Sentences are purposeful though some are long and could be broken up; overall it earns its length.

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 does not need to explain return types. It thoroughly covers the non-obvious behaviors needed to interpret the result correctly (kind, source_shape, servings fallback, tool-line handling). An agent has enough context to invoke the tool and understand the response without surprises.

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 description adds value by giving a concrete slug example and explaining important edge-case behavior for 'servings' (e.g., unscaled response when the page states no servings, and marking tool lines rather than multiplying). This is meaningful beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'one page of the recipe section', clearly distinguishing this from siblings like search_recipes or browse_recipes by requiring a slug. The inclusion of an example slug ('paella-de-marisco') makes the target concrete.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a slug for a specific recipe page and need its details, as opposed to searching or browsing. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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