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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations by disclosing the required reports:share scope, that no approval or new access is minted, that the receipt reflects the original commit rather than current state, and that it includes the original bearer link for create. This is meaningful behavioral context an agent could not infer from 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 core action and the request_id key, followed by prerequisites and a caution. Dense but every sentence contributes; minor redundancy in the final clause.

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, single-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers permission requirements, the freshness caveat, and hints at return content (the bearer link for create). An agent still lacks explicit detail on the full response shape, but the essentials are present.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it identifies request_id as the recovery key for the original create/revoke operation, which is useful. However, it never clarifies where request_id originates (e.g., the id returned by create/revoke) or its format, leaving a gap the schema does not fill.

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 ('Recover') plus resource ('exact original create/revoke receipt') and the keying parameter ('using its request_id'). It implicitly separates itself from the current-state tool ('separately get current link state') but never names the sibling explicitly, so differentiation is slightly less than fully self-contained.

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?

Gives clear context for use (recovering a historical create/revoke receipt by request_id) and a caution about not treating it as live state without checking current link state first. It omits an explicit when-not-to-use rule and does not name the alternative tool, but the guidance is strong.

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