consumers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose real traits: output ordering (EU/t ascending), a filtering rule (non-consumable inputs excluded), and a noise-reduction policy inherited from 'producers'. It does not state read-only nature, pagination behavior driven by limit/offset, or what the result rows contain, leaving meaningful gaps for a 5-parameter tool.

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?

Extremely tight single sentence with no filler, and the core scope is front-loaded. The trailing cross-reference to 'producers' noise rules is compact but shifts cognitive load to a different tool, slightly reducing standalone clarity.

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 5-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin: pagination, format selection, and include_all behavior are undefined, and the result shape is unknown. The 'same noise rules as producers' clause also makes completeness dependent on reading a sibling definition.

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 0% and there are 5 parameters, yet the description only touches the 'item' parameter implicitly ('该物品/流体'). limit, offset, format, and include_all get no explanation anywhere, so an agent must guess their semantics and interactions (e.g., how include_all changes the 'exclude non-consumable' rule).

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 in Chinese: recipes that CONSUME this item/fluid, which is a clear query and cleanly opposed to the sibling 'producers'. The sort order (EU/t ascending) sharpens the purpose further. It is not a tautology of the name, though it assumes the reader understands the domain (EU/t, 配方).

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 implicitly frames this as the counterpart to 'producers' (consumers vs producers), and the exclusion of non-consumable inputs hints at when a result should/should not be expected. However, it never says when to pick this over siblings like 'recipe' or 'search', and '降噪规则同 producers' defers rules to another tool without stating them, forcing a lookup.

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