Moonlight Garden Recipe Check

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) only sketch a profile; the description adds the genuinely non-obvious behavior that the upstream inventory list may auto-claim pending gifts and that claimed gifts come back with a UTC receipt time. That is exactly the side-effect detail an agent cannot get from annotations, and it stays consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the caveat/side effect. Every clause carries information: scope, exclusions, side effect, and return detail. No filler.

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?

With no output schema present, the description partially compensates by noting that claimed gifts are returned with a UTC receipt time, and "rank" implies an ordered result. It stops short of describing the validation outcome shape (e.g., what a failed validation looks like), leaving a small gap for a tool whose whole purpose is producing a ranked, validated list.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case: there is nothing for the description to explain about arguments. No meaning is lost because the input schema is an empty object.

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 a specific verb pair ("Validate and rank") and resource ("cookable ledger recipes") with the data sources it draws on (live inventory and quota). It also explicitly rules out cooking/selling, which sharpens what the tool is. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling tools daily_routine or farm_brief, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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: an agent can infer this is a pre-cooking validation step, and the "never cooks or sells" clause clarifies scope. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites or ordering relative to siblings.

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