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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is free, uses buyer budget, and never performs payment. These details align with the readOnlyHint and are not visible in the schema. It does not contradict 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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add key behavioral constraints. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse to allow correct invocation beyond knowing the trigger reasons. It does not clarify what recovery returns, how desiredResults relates to output, or how journeyId/task should be populated, leaving significant gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it only hints at the budget parameter ('uses buyer budget when provided'). It does not explain reasonCode, task, journeyId, or desiredResults, leaving most parameters under-specified.

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 states a specific purpose: recovery after structured feedback reasons like TOO_EXPENSIVE or PAYMENT_UNSUPPORTED. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing that it is free and never performs payment, but it does not fully specify what 'recovery' produces (e.g., a new quote or retry plan).

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 when-to-use context: after certain feedback reasons. It also provides a key usage detail—'uses buyer budget when provided'—and an explicit exclusion: 'never performs payment.' However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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