Find recipes

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results default to the player's levels unless maxLevel is supplied, a filtering behavior not captured anywhere in the structured fields.

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 use cases and ending with the one caveat that matters. The first sentence is a densely packed list but every element earns its place, and there is 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?

For a read-only search tool with a fully documented schema and existing output-free contract, the description covers purpose, use cases, and the key filtering default. It stops short of noting pagination via cursor or explicitly setting its boundary against closely related recipe/item tools.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes slightly beyond by explaining the behavioral consequence of omitting maxLevel (results filtered to the player's levels). It does not mention the cursor-based pagination or the player/product/material selectors explicitly.

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 frames the tool by three concrete use cases (how to make an item, what an item is used in, what a skill can make) and names the data returned (levels, XP, materials, tools, facilities). It is clear about what it does, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from overlapping siblings like find_item_sources or get_item.

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?

It states when to reach for the tool via three explicit scenarios, which is stronger than mere implied usage. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so an agent still has to infer the boundary with find_item_sources.

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