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

With no annotations, the description does carry real weight: it declares the operation is read-only over HTTP READ auth with no signing or settlement side effects, and discloses pagination via cursor. It does not disclose behavior on a missing/expired authorization, whether the operation is idempotent, or what is returned, leaving meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the safety constraint ('never signs or settles') placed early. The only cost is that the terse phrasing 'this exact original purchase' trades clarity for brevity.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage and a nested free-form object, the description is too thin. It omits what 'recover' actually yields, what original_request must contain, and how authorization_id relates to the purchase, so an agent cannot confidently construct a call.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters, yet it only addresses cursor ('for an existing result page'). authorization_id and the nested original_request object are entirely unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether original_request must be the exact prior call payload or something else.

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 pair (read/recover) and the resource (the original purchase), and the phrase 'Never signs or settles' implicitly contrasts it with the mutating foundry_purchase sibling. However, 'this exact original purchase' is referentially vague — the object being read is only pinned down by the schema's authorization_id.

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?

Says cursor is supplied 'for an existing result page', which implies continued pagination rather than a first call, and 'never signs or settles' steers agents away from using this to execute a purchase. But no sibling is named as the alternative for signing/settling, and no prerequisites (must the purchase already exist?) are stated.

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