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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't explain what 'recover' entails, whether it's a search or exact lookup, or how the parameters affect results. The term 'recover' could be misread as a mutating operation, but it's not an explicit contradiction.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. It lacks any structure, front-loads no key information, and the single phrase fails to earn its place by not conveying meaningful guidance.

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?

With 9 optional parameters, a likely complex output schema, and no explanation of the tool's actual function, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine what 'context' is being recovered, how to construct a valid request, or what to expect in the response. It fails to provide any actionable information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 9 parameters. It mentions none of them. Parameters like limit, since, cursor, task_ref, entity_id, entity_ref, entity_type, product_ref, and response_mode are completely unexplained. The description adds zero meaning to the parameter semantics.

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 states a verb ('Recover') and a resource ('mutation, task, approval, and policy context'), which gives some specificity. However, 'recover' is ambiguous (could mean retrieve, restore, or reconstruct), and 'context' is vague. It doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like operations_get or operations_get_approval, which likely overlap in purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where operations_get_context is preferred over operations_get or operations_get_approval, nor any exclusions. The description provides no context for selection.

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