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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that a new token is generated, that a file must be installed, the multi-call sequence, and a security warning about token sharing. It omits auth/permission requirements and failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the goal followed by the procedure and a safety note. Every sentence earns its place; only the trailing warning is arguably marginal.

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 two-step recovery flow with no output schema, the description covers the sequence and the returned-file handling adequately. The main gap is the undocumented required 'id' parameter, which an agent would have to infer from the schema alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains recovery_id semantics (omit on the first call, provide on the second), but the required 'id' parameter is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and goal ('Recover a lost control token by proving website control'), which distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like get_submission or verify_submission. There is a mild mismatch between the name (recover_submission) and the described resource (a control token), but the description clarifies what is actually recovered.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: first call without recovery_id, install the returned file, then call again with recovery_id. This tells the agent exactly how and in what order to invoke it. It does not, however, contrast against alternatives such as verify_submission or update_submission.

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