Read one recipe

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses what fields are returned, that unpublished times come back as null rather than zero, and how rescaling reports whether quantities landed exactly or were adjusted to measurable amounts. This is valuable behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Three sentences front-load the core purpose, then layer an example, return contents, null semantics, and optional rescaling behavior without any filler. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is highly scannable.

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 simple two-parameter schema, the rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains the identifier, the return shape, missing-data behavior, and the optional parameter's effect.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it illustrates the id format with a concrete URL example and explains the behavioral effect of servings on output, including the distinction between exact arithmetic and kitchen-measurable rounding. This goes well beyond the schema's short 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?

The description specifies a concrete verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('one recipe on Supertoinette'), and the exact addressing scheme ('the number in its address'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling search/browse/list tools because it retrieves a single recipe by identifier rather than discovering or enumerating recipes.

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 establishes that this tool is for reading a recipe already identified by its numeric address, and the schema's id guidance adds 'Search for a dish when you do not have one,' pointing the agent to search_recipes when the identifier is unknown. The servings behavior is also explained with enough context to know when to use the optional parameter.

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