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

With all annotations being false, the description compensates by stating 'No authentication required' and describing the expected outputs (a nonce for pubkey, a 6-digit recovery code for email). This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not fully articulate server-side side effects or error conditions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then immediately providing actionable method-specific guidance. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy, achieving excellent conciseness.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly tells the caller what they will receive for each method (nonce or recovery code) and the prerequisites (verified email, node ID). This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, especially given the sibling fabric_recovery_complete for the next step.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the relationships between method and the other parameters but does not add substantially new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 precisely states 'Start account recovery if you lost your API key', using a specific verb and resource. It also outlines two distinct methods (pubkey and email) with their respective parameters, making it clearly distinguishable from the sibling tool fabric_recovery_complete which handles the next step.

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 clear use cases (when you lost your API key) and detailed instructions for each method, including requirements like node_id for pubkey and a verified email for email. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, but the context is clear enough to guide correct selection.

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