get_recipe

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld behavior, and the description's 'read-only' merely repeats that. It does add one genuinely new behavior — ingredients are scaled to the requested portions — but says nothing about what happens when a search term matches multiple recipes (first hit? error?) or about network/rate-limit failure modes for an open-world fetcher.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding. The German and English sentences duplicate the same content, so the English line earns little beyond the 'read-only' restatement, but overall the definition is compact and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits the return shape (what recipe fields come back) and the multi-match behavior of the search-term path. Those are the main gaps an agent would want before calling it.

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% and the schema already explains both `recipe` (ID as string or integer, URL, or search term, with an example) and `portions` (target portions, default = recipe's own portions). The description's mention of ID/URL/search term and portion scaling only echoes that, adding no new semantics such as multi-match resolution or scaling limits.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Zeigt ein Chefkoch-Rezept' / 'Show a Chefkoch recipe') and enumerates the accepted lookup forms (ID, URL, search term) plus the portion-scaled ingredients. It never mentions the sibling search_recipes, so an agent cannot tell from the text how this differs from a search tool when a search term is supplied.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrasing: fetch one recipe by ID, URL, or search term. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the overlap with search_recipes (both accept a search term) is left unresolved, so the agent must infer the routing rule.

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