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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds value by framing the read as recovering a 'safe current state' and by disclosing response boundaries (no prompts, provider details, or private media). This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, with no contradiction.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Use this to recover') and packs the key return fields and exclusions into a compact, readable format.

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 single-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it lists return categories, scopes the resource to owned generations, and notes exclusions. It could add more about error behavior or what 'safe current state' means, but the essentials are covered.

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?

There is one required parameter, jobId, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not meaningfully elaborate on the parameter. The phrase 'one owned generation' hints at ownership scope, but it does not explicitly tie jobId to a generation or explain how to obtain it, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific action ('recover'), a clear resource ('the safe current state... for one owned generation'), and explicitly lists what is returned. It also distinguishes itself from media-fetching tools by stating what it never returns ('prompts, provider details, or private media').

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 description opens with 'Use this to recover...', which gives a clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or define when not to use this tool, but the return-boundary statement ('never returns prompts...') provides some exclusion guidance.

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