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

Annotations only set all hints to false, providing little safety profile. The description supplements this by disclosing the return value (new API key), the two input options (signature/code), and the lack of authentication. It does not go into side effects or failure modes, but annotations are not contradicted, and the added context covers the essential behavior.

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 convey the core action, both input modes, output, and an important condition (no authentication). No filler or repetition; every sentence is essential and front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states the return value. It explains both recovery paths and the challenge_id prerequisite. The tool is simple enough (3 parameters, no enums) that all essential usage context is covered in the description.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100%), and the description adds the key semantic that 'signature' and 'code' are mutually exclusive alternatives. This clarifies the relationship between the three parameters beyond the schema alone.

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 and resource ('Complete account recovery') and clearly states the outcome ('Returns a new API key'). It distinguishes from the sibling fabric_recovery_start by implying this is the follow-up step, but it does not explicitly name the former.

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 implies usage after fabric_recovery_start by referencing 'challenge_id' and the two alternative recovery modes. It also adds a key condition: 'No authentication required.' It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, keeping it a point short of a 5.

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