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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real context beyond that: the request must be owner-authorized, running requests are never automatically stolen even if stale (a concurrency/staleness guarantee), and a 'ready' receipt is not proof of live activation (a result-interpretation caveat). That is substantive behavioral information not encoded anywhere else.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct caveat. No filler, though the second and third sentences read as bare assertions that could be tied more explicitly to what the caller should do.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should convey something about the returned receipt/status shape; it only alludes to 'a ready receipt' without describing fields or states. For a simple two-parameter read tool the caveats are helpful, but the return-value picture remains underspecified.

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 coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only restates the parameter names ('by its business_id and idempotency key') without explaining the format of the idempotency key, whether business_id must match the caller's workspace, or what happens on key mismatch.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read an owner-authorized setup recovery request' with the two lookup keys named. It is distinguishable in substance from siblings like get_setup_checklist or get_activation_status, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 'owner-authorized' qualifier implies a precondition, and the note that a ready receipt does not prove live activation hints at how to interpret results. But there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_activation_status or retry_setup, and no when-not guidance.

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