unlocked_recipes

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is settled. The description contributes one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that results are filtered to alternates unless only_alternates=false — but says nothing about ordering, total counts, or how offset interacts with limit.

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?

Two short clauses, no filler, with the scope stated first. Minor noise in the truncated 'Paged by offset=.' phrasing, which reads like a fragment rather than a sentence.

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?

Six optional parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema: the description should clarify world/save/as_of scoping and the limit cap of 25. Instead it covers only two of six parameters, leaving an agent likely to guess at world selection semantics.

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 only 17%, so the description must carry more of the burden. It explains only_alternates and offset, but leaves world, save, as_of, and limit undocumented — most importantly the save vs. as_of relationship and how 'this world' is actually selected.

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?

Names the resource precisely (recipes unlocked in a given world) and states the alternates-only default, which meaningfully narrows what this returns. It does not name or contrast with close siblings such as search_recipes or alternates_for_item, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, even though search_recipes, recipe_detail, alternates_for_item, and rank_unlocks occupy adjacent territory. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'this world has unlocked'.

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