get_ingredient

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content about what the payload contains (conversions, supply options, preparations), but says nothing about error behavior when an id is unknown or the depth of the returned data.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is borderline telegraphic, but every word carries information about the tool and its return content.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, hinting at returned fields is a reasonable substitute for documenting returns. The missing piece is the identifier semantics — the one required input is left completely unexplained.

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% and the single id parameter has no description in either schema or prose. The description never explains what identifier is expected (numeric id form, where to obtain it), so the agent gets no meaning beyond the type.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get ingredient') and enumerates the data returned (conversions, supply options, preparations). It is distinguishable from list_ingredients and search_ingredients by the singular 'get' pattern, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative list/search tools, and no prerequisites for calling it. The only signal is the conventional get/list split implied by the sibling names, which the agent must infer.

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