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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — owner scoping, newest-first ordering, and the required 'Authorization: Bearer <JWT>' header — but says nothing about result size limits, defaults, or empty-set behavior.

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 action is front-loaded, but the sentence sprawls with em-dashes, capitalized 'RECOVERS', and stray whitespace runs that read as formatting artifacts. The recovery rationale is useful, yet it takes three clauses to say what one would 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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, auth, ordering, and filtering. Given only two optional parameters, this is nearly complete; only default `limit` behavior and result-size expectations are unstated.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description does add that `query` matches against name and summary and that omitting it returns everything owned. `limit` is not elaborated beyond the schema's 'how many (newest first)', leaving a small gap.

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 ('List YOUR saved rigs'), plus ordering ('newest first') and an optional filter. It is clearly distinguishable from rig_author (write) and rig_get (fetch a known id) by emphasizing owner-scoped enumeration.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case as cross-session recovery and contrasts with rig_author, warning that re-authoring would silently create a duplicate rig. It stops short of mentioning rig_get, which is the natural alternative when an id is already known, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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