Search the Pandough oven database. Returns oven specs (max temperature, type, fuel) plus recommended bake settings — top/deck heat, bake time, and deck material — computed for a Neapolitan pizza by the same heat engine the site uses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Oven type filter (e.g. 'pizza-oven', 'home-oven', 'outdoor') | |
| query | No | Search term (oven name, brand) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
ReadOnlyHint already covers safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns dynamically computed bake settings for a Neapolitan pizza rather than only static oven specs. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but for a read-only search this is acceptable.
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 with no filler: the search target is front-loaded, and the return contents are listed compactly. Every part adds useful information.
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 search tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned: oven specs plus computed bake settings. It stops short of describing behavior for empty queries or result ordering, but those are minor gaps.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'type' and 'query'. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, matching the baseline of 3.
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: 'Search the Pandough oven database.' It clearly differentiates itself from sibling search_flours by focusing on ovens and describes the output domain (oven specs and bake settings).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plan_bake or search_flours. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and general description, with no exclusions or routing hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct domain object or action: flour lookup/detail, oven lookup, recipe style enumeration, bake planning, active bake listing, and troubleshooting. Even search_flours and get_flour_details are clearly separated into discovery vs. deep detail, so there is no real ambiguity.
Most tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern such as search_flours, get_flour_details, list_recipes, and plan_bake. The bare verb 'troubleshoot' breaks the pattern slightly, but overall the naming is predictable and readable.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a baking planning domain and covers the core workflow from ingredient and equipment lookup to planning and troubleshooting. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary bloat or a too-thin surface.
The set covers the main bake-planning workflow well: find flour and oven, choose a recipe style, plan the bake, and get troubleshooting help. Minor gaps exist around managing active bakes beyond listing them and lack of a dedicated recipe detail endpoint, but agents can work around these.