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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is low, yet the description still adds an auth prerequisite ('Workspace authentication required') and the idempotent retry pattern for pending results. It adds real context rather than restating the hints.

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?

Four tight sentences with the core action and payload front-loaded, followed by exclusions, retry semantics and the auth prerequisite. No filler and every clause carries distinct information.

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 needn't be spelled out, and the description still characterizes what comes back. For a single-parameter read-only tool, auth requirement plus side-effect exclusions plus retry guidance is complete.

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?

With schema coverage at 0% for the single `id` parameter, the description is the only verbal source, and it only implies the value is a quote ID reusable across retries. The pattern/length constraints live in the schema but the description never clarifies where the ID comes from (e.g. quote_product output).

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?

Specific verb ('Recover') plus resource ('owned saved product quote') plus the exact payload returned ('options, price, expiry and order state'). The word 'saved'/'owned' implicitly separates it from quote_product, preview_product_quote and send_product_quote in the sibling list, so an agent can route without opening a 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?

'Does not send, charge, renew or replace a quote' explicitly excludes the adjacent write tools, and 'Reconcile pending results using the same quote ID' gives a concrete usage pattern. It stops short of naming the alternative sibling to use for the excluded actions, so not a full 5.

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