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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds the important constraint that history is bounded by retention and storage and is not an unlimited audit log, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It doesn't disclose pagination behavior or ordering, which would help more.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence about retention earns its place by shaping expectations. No fluff.

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 read-only list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and a key constraint. But with 0% param coverage and pagination parameters present, it leaves the agent without guidance on how limit/cursor work, which is a notable gap for a paginated list endpoint.

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 description coverage is 0% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'for a selected resume' implying resumeId, but provides no meaning for limit or cursor (the pagination parameters). An agent must infer pagination semantics from names alone. This is a significant gap given zero schema coverage.

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 available bounded recovery checkpoints for a selected resume.' Clear what it does, and 'recovery checkpoints' distinguishes it from list_resumes and get_resume. However, it doesn't explicitly mention pagination or that it pairs with restore_resume_version.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use. The retention sentence hints at a constraint but not a usage condition. The obvious companion tool restore_resume_version is not named, which would help an agent determine this is the lookup step before a restore.

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