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

The description adds access-control context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which already signals the operation is safe. It discloses that retrieval is permission-gated and that a bare ID is insufficient. This is valuable behavioral information that an agent needs before calling the tool, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 two sentences with zero redundancy. The core purpose ('Recover a task and result') is front-loaded, and the access restriction is stated immediately after. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context (access control) and purpose. It does not explain what happens if the caller is not authorized, but that is likely captured in the output schema or error handling. For a read-only retrieval, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 by explaining the task_id parameter, but it does not. The schema provides a pattern and length, but the description adds no meaning about what a task ID represents or how to obtain one. This leaves the parameter's semantics entirely to the schema, which is insufficient when the description is the primary source for agent guidance.

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 clearly states the tool recovers a task and its result, with a specific condition (sender or recipient). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions like accept_task, cancel_task, or complete_task, which are all mutation-oriented. The verb 'recover' is precise and unambiguous.

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 description explicitly states when the tool can be used: only if the caller is the sender or recipient of the task. It also warns that a task ID alone grants no access, which is a crucial usage constraint. While it does not name alternative tools, the restriction itself gives clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate versus other retrieval tools like inbox or get_mailbox.

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