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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: that ID reuse is mandatory, and that re-submitting a running or needs_attention operation under a new ID is an error. It stops short of saying what is returned for in-progress operations, though an output schema exists.

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?

Two sentences, roughly twenty words, with the core action first and the constraint second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, and the safety profile by the annotations, so the description only needed to add the ID-reuse constraint, which it does. It is slightly incomplete in not covering the in-progress case or the error behavior when an operation is still running.

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 has to carry the weight, and the phrase 'must not be retried under a new ID' meaningfully constrains operation_id to the existing ID rather than a freshly generated one. It adds real semantics over a bare 'operation_id: string' property, though it does not describe the expected ID format.

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 verb 'Recover' plus the resource 'a request's durable outcome' is specific and names the retrieval of a completed operation's result. It is not, however, explicitly distinguished from the sibling resume_operation, which an agent could easily confuse with this one given that both concern operations in flight.

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 clause 'must not be retried under a new ID' implies that this tool is the way to check on an operation that was already started and to poll an existing ID rather than re-issuing work. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus resume_operation, and no mention of what to do while the operation is still running.

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