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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds a valuable non-side-effect guarantee ('Never starts a calculation or purchase') that is especially relevant given the mention of 'payment credential'. But it does not disclose what happens on a mismatched UUID/credential, whether payment is re-validated, or what data is returned.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the recovery purpose and closed by a useful exclusion. There is zero filler, and every clause adds meaning.

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?

For a tool with 13 required parameters, no output schema, and a sibling with overlapping recovery scope (recover_saved_lookup), this description is too thin. An agent still cannot determine how the parameters encode the 'identical scenario', what the recovered result looks like, or when to prefer this tool over recover_saved_lookup.

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 needed to compensate, yet it explains none of the 13 required parameters. It also introduces 'trial UUID or payment credential' as the identification mechanism while the schema contains no such field, leaving the matching semantics ambiguous.

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 uses the specific verb 'Recover' with a concrete resource ('existing solar-battery-v1 result'), and states the retrieval key ('identical scenario and original trial UUID or payment credential'). 'Never starts a calculation or purchase' explicitly separates it from the sibling compare_solar_battery, so an agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

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?

'Never starts a calculation or purchase' provides a clear boundary: use this when an existing result must be retrieved, not when new work is wanted. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., compare_solar_battery or recover_saved_lookup) or spells out the exact conditions that should route an agent to one of them.

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