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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose important traits: verbatim restoration, a halt path on critical loss when allow=false, and a signed-receipt requirement. However, it does not explain mutation side effects, what 'critical loss' means, whether changes are reversible, or what a successful response looks like.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no obvious filler, and the core action appears first. It is dense and uses undefined jargon such as 'spans' and 'critical loss,' but it is not structurally bloated.

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 six-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is materially incomplete. It conveys the high-level purpose and two behavioral constraints, but leaves most parameter semantics and operational details unexplained.

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 compensate for six parameters. It only partially clarifies receipt (audit's signed receipt) and allow=false, while post_text, event_id, snapshot, and snapshot_ref receive no semantic explanation.

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 names a specific verb and resource: restore degraded/lost spans verbatim. It also states a key conditional behavior (HALT when allow=false), but does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings audit, pin, or snapshot.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'restore DEGRADED/LOST spans' and the prerequisite that the audit's signed receipt is required. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose reinject versus audit, pin, or snapshot, nor any clear when-not-to-use guidance beyond the allow=false halt behavior.

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