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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful scope-limiting behavior ('does not save private work, contact anyone, assign a worker or grant authority') and states the return shape (rule-based recovery steps plus a qualified brief), which goes beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition, followed by input expectations and the negative boundary. No filler sentences, though the middle sentence mixes input guidance and return behavior slightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in depth. However, with 8 required parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves an agent guessing about fields like attempted, constraints, next_action, needed_from, and independent_next_action, which is a material gap for a tool this complex.

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% across 10 parameters, including a nested authorization object, so the description carries the compensation burden. It mentions only 'sanitized task, exact missing piece and acceptance check,' covering roughly 3 of 10 params, and its blocker list maps imperfectly to the 8-value enum (omits missing_capability and quality).

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 ('plan recovery for a blocked agent task') and enumerates the blocker conditions it handles, so the purpose is clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the siblings get_capability/search_capabilities, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

The opening 'Use this when...' clause enumerates concrete trigger conditions (missing fact, resource, owner decision, external commitment, specialist, connection fix, artifact correction). It adds boundary guidance via the negative clause, but names no alternative tool for the cases it does not serve.

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