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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that the tool computes the entire production chain, accepts item or recipe slugs, and that optional character/server overrides recompute the whole chain for that profile. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or error handling, the mutation-free nature is implied and the optional parameter effects are clearly described.

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 a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the primary function, then usage, an alternative, and optional parameter behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningful information; there is no repetition or filler. It is slightly long but appropriately detailed for a tool with seven parameters.

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's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, the alternative, and how optional parameters change behavior. It names the output dimensions (raw materials, labor calories, craft minutes, step count) in the first sentence, partially compensating for the lack of an output schema. Minor gaps like error handling or return format remain, but the description is largely complete.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds value by clarifying that the slug can be an item or recipe slug, grouping the character setup parameters (skill_level/skills, talents, modules), and explaining that passing these or a server override recomputes the entire chain. This exceeds baseline by providing semantic context not fully apparent in the schema alone.

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 flattens a recipe/craftable item into total raw materials across the production chain, with total labor calories, craft minutes, and crafting-step count. It uses a specific verb 'Flatten' plus a well-specified resource and scope, and explicitly distinguishes itself from wiki_bom by directing users there for intermediate sub-component breakdowns.

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 explicitly says 'Use for what does it take to make X from scratch' and names the alternative tool (wiki_bom) for cases where crafted intermediates are needed. It also explains when to use the optional character/server overrides, providing clear context for selecting this tool over siblings.

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