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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'never charges or executes again.' It adds valuable context beyond the annotations by warning that the quote is a bearer recovery credential and should be kept private, which is important security-relevant 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?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the key safety behavior follows immediately, and the security warning earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, non-execution safety, and credential sensitivity. It does not explain return values or error behavior, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity keep this from being a major gap.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It maps 'payment identifier' to payment_identifier and 'original signed quote' to quote, adding meaningful semantics by describing the quote as a bearer recovery credential. It does not specify formats or expiration rules, but it provides useful meaning beyond the raw schema.

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: 'Recover a paid outcome using its payment identifier and original signed quote.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from execution by stating 'never charges or executes again,' making it easy for an agent to separate this from xguard_execute.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: after a payment has been made and the paid outcome needs to be recovered. It also provides an implicit exclusion by saying it never charges or executes again, though it does not explicitly name xguard_execute or xguard_discover as alternatives.

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