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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the status vocabulary and the recall resolution mechanism. It does not cover permissions, errors such as an unknown recall_id, or what 'yours' scopes to.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the purpose comes first. The fragment-style opening and unexplained jargon ('hop', 'via') reduce clarity somewhat.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. It still adds the resolution workflow. Brief definitions of hop and via, or a note on the source of recall IDs, would make it complete.

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 coverage is 0%, but the single recall_id parameter is mostly self-explanatory. The description refers to recall_id in the resolution instruction. It never says where a recall_id comes from, for example from recall_document or an alert.

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?

It says the tool returns a recall's tree, listing each affected version with hop, via and status (open | resolved | dismissed). That identifies the resource and output structure. It does not separate itself from recall_document, which likely creates recalls, or from get_lineage.

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?

It gives a concrete follow-up workflow: resolve a recall by writing a new version with resolves_recall=<recall_id> that no longer uses the recalled versions. That is useful guidance on what to do with the results. It never says when to call this tool rather than siblings like get_lineage or recall_document.

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