Recipe Fulfillment Tool

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 uses non-mutating language ('Check', 'Reports') and discloses the output semantics, but it does not explicitly state that no stock is consumed or modified, nor what happens for invalid or unknown recipes.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and expected report are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter read-only check with an output schema available, the description covers the essential invocation context. It could be slightly richer by mentioning side-effect-free behavior or sibling distinctions, but nothing critical is missing for calling the tool 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?

The input schema already documents the single 'recipe' parameter with type and format examples at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Check whether a recipe can be made') and the resource involved ('current stock'), and it explains the result ('whether all ingredients are available and how many are missing'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related recipe/stock tools, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 the main use case: determining recipe feasibility against current stock. However, it provides no when-not-to-use guidance, exclusions, or pointers to alternatives like recipe_consume_preview_tool or shopping_list_add_missing_tool.

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