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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: 'Free; it starts no generation' discloses cost and absence of side effects, and it warns that unknown outcomes must be reconciled here rather than retried. It stops short of describing what the recovery response contains.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the free/no-generation fact and then the retry warning. Dense but every clause carries operational meaning; 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 single-parameter, read-only recovery tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the origin of the ID, the recovery semantics, and the retry prohibition. Only minor gap is what exactly the returned picture and settlement data look like.

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 the schema already defines the single UUID parameter and its pattern. The description goes beyond that by specifying where a valid value must come from — a prior picture generation, photo edit, background removal, or upscale — which the schema alone does not state as clearly.

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 (read) and resource (the original saved picture and settlement) and scopes it to clientRequestIds from earlier generation, photo edit, background removal, or upscale calls. This clearly separates it from soclo_image_generate, soclo_image_frames, and the quote tools without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: after an interruption, when a result is lost or a charge is unknown. It also names the wrong paths — never retry automatically, and a wallet read alone does not recover an image — routing the agent away from soclo_wallet and re-generation.

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