Product recipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the returned data (stat movement as a percent at lowest and highest ingredient quality, craft time, mission count), which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource before the list of returned contents. The mid-sentence clause structure ('and how the ingredient quality moves each stat...') is slightly run-on, but every clause conveys information about the output.

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 read-only, two-optional-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers return contents thoroughly, which is the main informational burden here. The remaining gap is the parameter contract — how to choose between product and product_id and what is required — which the description leaves entirely to the schema.

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 100%, with 'product' documented as a name and 'product_id' as an exact id from search_products or a candidates list, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes nothing about parameters — it does not say the two are alternative ways of specifying the same product or what happens if both or neither are given.

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 names the specific resource (a product's crafting recipe) and enumerates its contents: per-slot ingredient, quantity, minimum quality, quality-to-stat scaling, craft time, and mission reward count. That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like craftable_from or ingredient_uses, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those alternatives.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus search_products, craftable_from, or ingredient_uses, and no note on prerequisites. Critically, with both parameters optional and nullable, the description never says that a product name or product_id must be supplied — the reader must infer it from the schema.

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