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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states a high-level action ('recover') without mentioning idempotency, side effects, authorization needs, or whether it is destructive. The agent cannot determine safe usage from the description alone.

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 a single sentence that gets to the point quickly without extraneous words. It is concise and front-loaded with the main action. However, its brevity trades off needed detail, making it incomplete.

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?

Given 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not cover parameter semantics, return values, or behavioral context. The tool complexity demands richer documentation.

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 input schema lists 4 required parameters (setup_token, delivery_claim, setup_intent_id, purchase_intent_id) with validation constraints but no descriptions. Schema coverage is 0% as the description does not explain any parameter. The agent cannot infer what these IDs/tokens represent or how to obtain them.

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 'Recover live API-key delivery after a settled marketplace plan activation' provides a specific verb ('recover') and resource ('API-key delivery'), but the verb is vague ('recover' could mean retry or claim). It does not differentiate from sibling activation tools like hilt_activate_starter or retry mechanisms. The purpose is moderately clear but lacks precision.

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 only loosely implies usage context ('after a settled marketplace plan activation') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned. Sibling tools (e.g., hilt_activate_*) suggest this is a follow-up step, but the description does not clarify.

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