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

Annotations already establish a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: an expiring archive link, refusal of foreign live references, and the caveat that omitted text is not empty source. This also implicitly explains the idempotentHint=false (expiring link). It stops short of describing the receipt's failure modes or bundle ordering in detail.

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?

The core resource is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the paragraph is dense and jargon-laden ('bounded source text', 'later CueFrame adaptations', 'foreign live references refuse'), reducing scannability. Sentences carry content but several caveats could be tightened.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return structure, and it sensibly covers behavioral caveats instead. For a single-param getter this is largely sufficient; the main gap is the absence of sibling differentiation across the many registry-related 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 coverage is 100%, but the sole parameter is documented only as 'receiptId (path).' and the description never mentions receiptId or its expected format/value. With the schema doing essentially all the work and the description adding nothing, the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Recover') and a well-defined resource (an organization-owned immutable acquisition receipt with raw/transformed descriptors, source text and archive link). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like get_registry_item, acquire_registry_item, or search_registry_items, so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_registry_item or search_registry_items, and no stated preconditions or exclusions. The only guidance-like clauses ('Foreign live references refuse', 'never grants compatibility') are behavioral constraints, not usage routing, leaving selection to inference.

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