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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'nothing is credited without a verified on-chain burn,' which is a key behavioral constraint (requires on-chain burn, likely a destructive/state-changing action). However, it doesn't disclose other behaviors like: whether the tool itself performs the burn, whether it requires prior actions (like having ingredients), what happens on failure (e.g., if burn doesn't verify), or the output format. The description gives one critical constraint but lacks comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core action ('get the exact burn spec, burn the inputs yourself, then claim the minted output'), making it easy to scan. The second sentence adds a critical constraint ('Nothing is credited without a verified on-chain burn'). No wasted words, good structure for quick comprehension.

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?

The description provides a high-level process and a key constraint, but it's incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It doesn't explain what recipeId is, whether it's required, how to obtain it (presumably from craft_recipes), or what the tool returns (e.g., a status, transaction hash). Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description should fill these gaps. The complexity is moderate (crafting a good), but the description leaves crucial procedural details unspecified (e.g., does the tool itself perform the burn? Or is it a two-step tool?).

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 schema has one parameter (recipeId) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no description for it. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so the agent learns the parameter's purpose only from its name ('recipeId' - presumably the ID of a craft recipe). This is insufficient; the description should clarify what recipeId refers to, whether it's required, and any format constraints. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 is about crafting a processed good on X1 with a specific process (burn spec, burn inputs, claim minted output). It distinguishes from sibling tools like craft_recipes (which likely lists recipes) by focusing on the execution of the crafting process, not just viewing recipes. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'crafting' as a verb for the tool action, but the context makes it clear.

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 implies when to use this tool: when an agent wants to craft a processed good on X1. It provides a procedural flow (get burn spec, burn inputs, claim output), which gives context on the sequence of actions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools like craft_recipes for browsing recipes. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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