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

With annotations already covering read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world traits, the description adds concrete behavioral context: the receipt is immutable, a miss may mean an in-flight request, keys must not be replaced, and expiry/lost proof means confirmation is unavailable rather than no commit. This is valuable context beyond structured fields.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then layers necessary caveats and alternative guidance. Each sentence delivers a distinct operational point, with no filler or repetition beyond reinforcing a critical safety constraint.

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, idempotent recovery tool with a fully described single parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, miss semantics, expiry behavior, and alternatives. It supplies everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds parameter-related meaning by requiring 'the original configured identity' and clarifying that bootstrap proof can recover only its publication. It reinforces key-handling constraints already in the schema, adding moderate extra value.

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 verb ('Recover'), a specific resource ('immutable confirmation'), and the scope ('saved publication or handoff-action key using the original configured identity'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling read_topic by explicitly saying a receipt confirms commit, not current visibility or handoff state.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use context (recover a saved receipt), when-not-to-use context ('not current visibility or handoff state; re-read the topic'), and edge-case guidance about misses, expiry, and never replacing a key. The alternative tool (re-read the topic) is named directly.

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