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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one valuable behavioral guarantee — recovery will not trigger a second payment charge — but it omits whether authentication/authorization is required, whether recovery is repeatable or rate-limited, and what happens for an unsettled or unknown id.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the no-double-charge safety note attached efficiently. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter tool with a fully described schema and an output schema that covers return values, the definition supplies the essential scope and safety guarantee. Only edge-case behavior (unsettled purchase, invalid hash) is left unstated.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents that it accepts a purchase_id or submission_hash. The description mirrors that same fact without adding format, validation, or lookup-order semantics beyond the 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?

Uses a specific verb ('Recover') against a specific resource ('original signed Standing Mark Record') scoped to settled purchases, which distinguishes it from the nearby retrieve/standing result siblings. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, keeping it short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for a settled purchase_id' establishes a precondition (the purchase must already be settled), which is genuinely useful selection context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over whp_retrieve_result or whp_standing_result, nor what to do if the purchase is not settled.

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