crafting_usage

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full load. It accurately conveys the read-only search behavior and the ability to handle multiple inputs ('one or more given resources'). However, it doesn't disclose any limits, edge cases, or return format, so it offers only basic transparency.

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 sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the main action in the first sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter reverse-lookup tool, the description sufficiently covers what it does and why you'd use it. Given the lack of an output schema, it could mention result presentation (e.g., list of item names) but that's a minor gap, and the context with sibling tools like crafting_requirements implies the inverse nature.

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 sole parameter (item_names) already has a 100% schema description with examples, and the tool description only echoes that a single or multiple resources are accepted. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, this is a baseline 3 with no added meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a clear resource scope ('items that use... as crafting ingredients') and explicitly frames the two questions it answers. This distinguishes it from the inverse tool crafting_requirements and provides immediate understanding.

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 provides clear usage context by naming two concrete applications ('what is this used for?' and 'is it safe to sell?'). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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