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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavior the annotations don't: it returns a token that must be stored securely, and the recovery code remains valid until replaced. It doesn't state rate limits or whether the operation logs the caller, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and inputs, then the return value, then persistence semantics, then failure conditions. No sentence is filler.

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?

Covers inputs, the returned token, and the two failure modes (revoked, deleted). With no output schema present, the description does supply the return value, but it could add what the restored token grants or the error shape for an invalid code.

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 carry the load. It does by labeling accountId as the public identifier and recoveryCode as the private credential, which is the key semantic distinction the schema's regex patterns alone don't convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: restores account access using the public account ID plus private recovery code, and names the returned artifact (account token). This clearly separates it from arcade_create_account and arcade_replace_recovery_code, though it doesn't explicitly mention those siblings.

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?

Gives usable preconditions and exclusions: a valid recovery code is required, it stays valid until replaced, and revoked/deleted accounts cannot be recovered. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to arcade_replace_recovery_code when the code is lost or rotated.

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