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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool recovers a private key and returns certain fields. It fails to mention side effects, required permissions, security implications, or whether the operation is reversible or destructive. The truncated sentence further reduces transparency about the recovery process.

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 repeats the opening sentence verbatim, wasting space, and includes an incomplete sentence. The doc comments are appended without polished formatting, though they are concise. Overall, the structure is functional but contains clear redundancies and truncation that detract from clarity.

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's purpose and parameters are covered, and the return object is described. However, the description lacks usage guidance, security context, and any mention of prerequisites, especially given the sensitivity of recovering a private key. The incomplete 'It's preferable...' sentence leaves a noticeable gap. For a simple 2-parameter tool, this is adequate but not 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?

The @param comments add meaning beyond the schema: api_key is described as 'The api key allocated to your application' and words as 'A set of 24 recovery words, space delimited'. This provides important context about format and constraints, especially since the schema has no property descriptions. The description effectively compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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's action: 'Recovers the Netfluid wallet's private key from a set of 24 keywords.' It also specifies the return object with fields, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like netfluid__crypto_from_key or netfluid__wallet_mnemonic. The verb 'Recovers' and resource 'private key' are specific and actionable.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The incomplete sentence 'It's preferable that the person trying to recover' hints at a prerequisite but is truncated and gives no actionable direction. There are no exclusions, no mention of alternatives, and no clear context for when this tool should be selected.

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