get_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It adds useful context about what the response contains (ingredients, instructions, nutrition) and the provenance of the slug, but it does not disclose error behavior for invalid/not-found slugs, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a simple read operation, the safety profile is reasonably inferable.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first front-loads the tool's purpose, the second documents the parameter in a standard Args format. There is zero wasted text or redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and the search-to-detail workflow. The only meaningful gap is the absence of not-found/error behavior expectations, which is a minor omission for a read-only getter.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare 'string' type. It does so by explaining that slug is a 'Recipe slug identifier' and that it comes 'from search results', which gives the agent meaningful guidance on what value to pass and where to obtain it.

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 ('Get'), resource ('recipe'), and scope ('full recipe details including ingredients, instructions, and nutrition'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_recipe_ingredients, which covers only a subset of the content.

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 phrase 'slug: Recipe slug identifier (from search results)' implies a workflow of searching first then retrieving details, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against alternatives like get_recipe_ingredients. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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