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

Annotations already show read-only and idempotent. The description adds non-obvious behavior: running requests are never automatically stolen (even stale ones) and a ready receipt does not prove live activation. No contradiction with 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two high-signal caveats.

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?

Given a simple read tool with rich annotations stan, the description covers scoping and behavioral caveats welltwenty, but without an output schema or return-shape statement, an agent is left guessing what the response contains. Still fairly complete with name/title.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must supply parameter meaning. It clarifies the two parameters are a lookup key by 'business and idempotency key,' but it doesn't explain their format, validity, or behavior when matches are absent.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read'), names the resource ('owner-authorized setup recovery request'), and specifies the exact lookup keys ('business and idempotency key'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling status tools by naming the unique resource.

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 owner-authorized qualifier gives some context on when the tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternative get_* tools. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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