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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond them: results expire within 24 hours and are tied to the owner's access. It does not describe failure cases for expired or unauthorized requests, but the disclosed constraints exceed what annotations alone provide.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core action and required credentials are front-loaded, and the expiration constraint earns its place as essential behavioral information.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: what is retrieved, what credentials are required, and the retention window. It does not explicitly explain how to obtain a job_id, but that is reasonably inferred from the submit_* siblings.

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 description mentions 'using its job_id', which adds basic contextual meaning, but does not elaborate on where the job_id comes from or how it relates to the original submission. The schema's pattern already defines the expected format, so the description offers only minimal semantic uplift.

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 a specific action ('Recover') and resource ('original complete private CSV or audit result') tied to a job_id. It distinguishes itself from siblings through the job_id-based retrieval, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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 gives clear usage context: clients need a job_id, the owner's bearer access header, and must act within 24 hours before expiration. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for the one-parameter retrieval case.

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