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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations' readOnly/idempotent profile: 'No costs or mutation,' 'Pending work remains pending' (the call returns in-progress states rather than blocking), and 'Client-reported submissions are unverified.' These are useful disclosures an agent would otherwise not know. It still leaves unclear what happens when the operation_id is unknown or the caller lacks authority to the originating key, so it does not fully cover failure behavior.

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?

Sentences are short and the core action is front-loaded before the representation caveat. The register is dense and jargon-heavy ('originating-key,' 'read authority,' 'independent observations'), which costs some readability, but little of the text is truly redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value description is unnecessary, and the description covers the salient behavioral edges: cost, mutation, pending states, representation choice, and the unverified-submission caveat. What's missing is the relationship to the sibling get_operation/list_operations tools and what happens on unauthorized or expired ids.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description goes further by explaining the consequence of omitting representation (legacy results retained, v2 payloads refused) rather than just restating the const value. That consequence-level detail is exactly what the schema cannot convey.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Recover one originating-key operation result under current read authority,' which tells an agent this is a single-item result fetch scoped to the calling key. It is clear, but it never names the closest sibling (webanto_get_operation) or explains how this differs from it, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is real guidance for the representation switch: choose 'directory_v2' for a destination-specific handoff with additional approved materials, and omission retains legacy results and refuses v2 payloads. However, there is no guidance on when to call this tool rather than get_operation or list_operations, and no stated prerequisites beyond 'current read authority.'

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