get_recipe_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does mention the connection prerequisite and positions this as a read/inspiration tool. However, it doesn't disclose what happens when the recipe doesn't exist, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the returned output structure looks like. The one-ID-per-call scoping is implied but not fully explicit.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the primary purpose in the first sentence and secondary context (usage scenario + prerequisite) in the second. No wasted words, though the separation of 'inspiration' context could potentially be merged more tightly.

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 tool has only one parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It addresses the key context (requires prior connection, used for inspiration before custom recipe creation). It lacks explicit behavioral notes like error handling or return format, but for a single-param lookup tool with output schema, this is adequate.

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% with a clear example of the recipe_id format ('r59322', 'r907015'). The description adds that the recipe_id targets standard Cookidoo recipes, which slightly supplements the schema. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description provides minimal additional parameter insight beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool gets detailed information about a specific recipe by its ID, with a specific verb-object pair. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_custom_recipe_details by noting it's for standard Cookidoo recipes, though it could be more explicit about the distinction from custom recipe tools.

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 usage context: use for recipe inspiration before creating a custom recipe. It also specifies a prerequisite (must be connected via connect_to_cookidoo first). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_custom_recipe_details or state when NOT to use it, which would elevate it to a 5.

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