producers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses real behavior beyond structured fields: the EU/t ascending sort, the default-hidden recipe categories, the >8-output ordering, and the include_all override. It omits return shape and pagination behavior, but the filtering/ordering disclosure is substantial.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the purpose, then appends sorting and default-filter clauses; every clause carries information. It is slightly packed but has no filler or redundancy.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description should ideally cover return format, pagination, and max_eut behavior. It covers purpose, sorting, and default filters, but leaves the remaining five parameters and the response shape unexplained, leaving clear gaps for a 6-param query 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains only include_all (disables default hiding); limit, offset, format, max_eut, and item are left with bare titles and defaults, so most parameter semantics are undocumented anywhere.

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: recipes that produce the given item/fluid, with a sort order (ascending EU/t). This clearly separates it from the inverse 'consumers' sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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 note that default filtering hides packaging/unpacking/universal-simulation/recycling recipes and that include_all=True disables it is actionable usage guidance, effectively 'when you need those categories, toggle this'. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives statement (e.g., vs consumers, recipe, search), leaving sibling selection to inference.

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