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

The annotations provide no positive hints, so the description carries the burden. It does add useful context: the token expires in 15 minutes and an api_key is required. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether issuing a new token invalidates previous recovery tokens, nor any failure/error 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?

Two compact sentences plus a parenthetical prerequisite. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds operational value without redundancy.

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 description covers the use case, token validity, authentication requirement, and a prerequisite. With no output schema, the exact token response format is not specified, but the description provides enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 67%: api_key and reason have schema descriptions, but external_id has none. The description reinforces the api_key requirement but does not clarify external_id semantics, so it only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 identifies the operation: returning a 15-minute-valid recovery token for a user who lost their device and needs to re-register a passkey. This is specific enough to distinguish the tool from siblings like revoke_credential and revoke_user.

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 gives a precise when-to-use scenario (lost device, passkey re-registration) and an important prerequisite (developer-side identity verification must be completed first). It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but no closely competing sibling exists.

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