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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds real semantics beyond them: 'succeeded' proves persistence, 'unknown' does not prove failure, and the agent should re-read the record before acting. This is exactly the result-interpretation guidance an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by when to use it and the result-semantics caveat; every sentence earns its place. The trailing untrusted-content warning is boilerplate but short and security-relevant.

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 no output schema, the description correctly takes on explaining what the status result means, and it covers the core call scenario. It is slightly incomplete on the objectType parameter and workspaceId necessity, but is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 only 20% (only workspaceId is documented), so the description must carry the rest. It does clarify that lookup is by the original idempotencyKey and the action, which maps to two of the four required parameters, but it never explains the objectType enum or the idempotencyKey format/maxLength, leaving gaps.

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+resource (reports the saved status of an earlier stage move/close/reopen/correction) and the lookup key (original idempotencyKey and action). An agent can distinguish it from the mutating siblings close_record, reopen_record, and correct_closure without opening the 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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: 'Use it when a call's response was lost.' It also warns against misreading an 'unknown' result. It does not name explicit alternatives (e.g. get_record or get_record_lifecycle), so it stops short of the full when/when-not/alternative treatment.

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