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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns one HTTPS page for a recovery transaction, but does not clarify whether the tool itself performs an on-chain transaction or just generates a link. This ambiguity about side effects is not resolved beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single, focused sentence that directly names the action and outcome. It is efficiently front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant details.

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?

The tool has no output schema and three required parameters with zero description coverage. While the description mentions 'owned collection' and 'recovery transaction', it omits crucial context like how ownership is validated, what the returned page is used for, any error conditions, or how parameters map to behavior. The description is too sparse for a transaction-related tool.

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 should explain parameter meanings, but it only vaguely references 'deployment or resolver recovery', which loosely maps to the action enum. It fails to define 'parentAddress', the 'mode' enum (locked/linked), or the specific actions (retry_deployment, link_resolver, enforce_resolver), leaving the agent to guess.

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 clearly states the tool re-derives an owned collection and returns an HTTPS page for deployment or resolver recovery, which is a specific action not fully covered by sibling tools. The verb 're-derive' and resource 'recovery transaction' give it a distinct purpose, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'collection_action_tx'.

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 for recovering deployment or resolver transactions on an owned collection, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or what prerequisites exist. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer the intended context.

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