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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses key traits: transitive summation across the whole tree, primary-recipe selection with alternatives listed, optional ingredient filtering returning total+role, and server override behavior. It does not mention error handling or return format, but the disclosed behavior is substantial and non-contradictory.

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 dense but well-structured paragraph: definition first, then usage context, sibling distinctions, parameter walkthrough, and a concrete example. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value; the front-loading of the core purpose and differentiators makes it easy to scan.

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 10-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains all parameter categories, gives an example, and covers the main use cases. The lack of an explicit return-shape description is a minor gap, but the example and behavioral details largely compensate.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: it clarifies slug as target item or recipe, quantity as units of target with default/clamp, ingredient as specific component with role determination, and recipe_slug as override with alternatives. The example ties parameters together, enriching 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 opens with a specific definition: 'Bill-of-materials for making a target item/recipe: the full crafting tree INCLUDING the crafted intermediate sub-components (NOT just raw leaves).' It names the exact resource (crafting tree) and verb (compute BOM), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings wiki_total_raw and wiki_calc, eliminating ambiguity.

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?

It states precisely when to use: 'This is the tool for "how many <component> does it take to make <target>"' and gives exclusions: 'Differs from wiki_total_raw (raw materials only) and wiki_calc (exact one-step numbers for a single recipe).' It also explains how to pass item vs recipe slug and optional overrides, providing clear usage context.

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