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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that — the 5-block station proximity constraint and that furnace recipes burn fuel from inventory. That fuel consumption is a genuine side effect worth flagging. It does not describe output or failure modes.

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 dense sentences with no waste; the core action is front-loaded and the constraints and recipe pointer follow. Every clause carries 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key environmental preconditions (station proximity, fuel) that an agent needs before calling. It omits what the call returns or how failure looks, but annotations already carry the open-world/non-destructive signal.

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 all three parameters (item, count, api_key) are already documented in the schema. The description implies the item maps to a recipe output but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Craft an item') and clarifies it operates on recipe outputs. It is distinguishable from siblings like mine, place, and use, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Gives clear operating context: recipes requiring a station need it within 5 blocks, and furnace recipes consume fuel. It also routes the agent to GET /v1/recipes for recipe discovery, which is effectively a pointer to the sibling get_recipes. No explicit exclusions, but usable guidance.

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