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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context like 'owned' and 'durable,' but it does not explain what the recovery state contains or whether it represents pending, completed, or failed recovery. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. The verb and object come first, and the ownership qualifier is placed where it is naturally parseable. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool, the description is adequate, and annotations reduce the burden on behavioral disclosure. However, there is no output schema and no explanation of the state values or polling context, and the absence of usage guidance leaves an agent guessing when to call it. It is minimally viable but not fully 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?

The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must give the parameter meaning. It does so by identifying the parameter as an 'owned Payment Identifier,' which tells the agent what to supply. It does not specify format or validation rules, but for a single string parameter this is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and a specific resource ('durable recovery state') scoped to an owned Payment Identifier. This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like get_commerce_purchase_status and the recover_* actions. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_commerce_purchase_status, recover_authorized_purchase, or recover_commerce_purchase. It does not mention that it should be used to check recovery progress or what prerequisite conditions apply. The only usage signal comes from the tool name, not the description.

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