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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive/local scope, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: a cap of ten items, a 24-hour recovery window, and the reassurance that no new review or credit spend is started. The credit-spend note is valuable for an agent deciding whether calling has side effects.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the scope (up to ten recoverable reviews) before the usage condition and the no-cost guarantee. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a parameterless read tool, the description covers scope, result limit, time window, and absence of side effects — everything needed to call it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no argument semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies the purchase context comes from the session rather than an argument.

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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (completed, recoverable Deep Reviews) scoped to the connected purchase, which lets an agent distinguish it from get_review_summary. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 states a clear use condition: 'Use when you ask which review summaries are still available within the 24-hour recovery period.' That is concrete guidance, though it never names get_connected_purchase or get_review_summary as the alternatives for adjacent questions.

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