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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a gating condition and a price of 0.003 USDC, but does not explain what happens if conditions are unmet, what the resume action actually mutates, or how idempotency and side effects are handled.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, efficiently stating the gating condition and cost. The semicolon-separated price is compact, though the dense field list could be clearer.

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 has three nested object parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain return behavior, failure modes, or how the nested objects map to recovery semantics, leaving significant gaps for safe invocation.

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. It names several required concepts (identity, sequence, deadline, attempt budget, side effects), but it omits nested fields such as checkpoint.state_sha256 and policy.max_attempts, and mentions idempotency which does not appear in the schema.

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 implies a resume/recovery action for interrupted tasks, and the name confirms the resource. However, it does not state the purpose as a clear verb+resource pair and offers no differentiation from sibling recovery, idempotency, or transaction tools.

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 phrase 'Resume only when...' gives a precondition for use, which is more than no guidance. But it does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives like transaction_recovery or idempotency_replay_guard, nor does it describe when not to use it.

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