Craftable from ingredients

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value by disclosing result ordering: complete recipes first, then partial matches ranked by slots covered / total. It doesn't state result count behavior or returned fields, but the ordering contract is the operationally important trait here.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and the ranking rule appended as a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though '(slots covered / total)' is tersely phrased and assumes the reader knows what a recipe slot is.

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 3-parameter read-only query with no output schema, the definition covers what it returns conceptually and how results are ordered, but leaves undefined terms ('slots'), result shape, and whether partial matches are truncated by limit. Adequate to call, but not fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 67%: ingredients and product_type both carry descriptions, while limit is self-documenting via default/min/max constraints. The description adds nothing about parameter format or the meaning of limit relative to ranking, so this sits at the baseline where the schema does the work.

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 resource and implicitly a reverse-lookup verb: products craftable from a given ingredient list, contrasted with the forward-direction siblings product_recipe and ingredient_uses. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated, but an agent can still tell this apart from its siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrasing ('from the given ingredients' plus the schema note 'Ingredients on hand'), which conveys the input scenario without spelling out when to prefer this over product_recipe or ingredient_uses. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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