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

With no annotations, the description carries behavioral disclosure. It explains the computation scope (whole production chain), that either item or recipe slug works, and that optional parameters recompute the entire chain. It also notes server override semantics (default is this server's real settings). It does not mention error handling or return format, but for a computation tool this is fairly transparent.

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 two sentences: first states the core action and outputs, second gives usage context, alternative, and optional parameters. Each part earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the primary use case, distinguishes from sibling, and explains optional parameter effects. It could mention output shape but that's not strictly required. Overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds useful context: slug accepts item or recipe, and character/server overrides affect the whole chain. It also clarifies the difference between module parameter and modules array. This goes beyond mere schema descriptions.

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's purpose: flatten a recipe or craftable item to total raw materials, with labor calories, craft minutes, and step count. It distinguishes itself from sibling wiki_bom by explicitly saying wiki_bom gives intermediate sub-components, while this tool gives the raw shopping list.

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?

Provides explicit use case: 'what does it take to make X from scratch'. It names the alternative tool (wiki_bom) for when you need intermediates, and explains when to use optional character/server overrides. This is very clear guidance.

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