verify_recovery

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description does add real behavior beyond that: this is a blocking poll requiring two consecutive healthy samples, with a timeout exit. It omits the poll interval, whether the call blocks the caller, and whether a timeout is an error or a returned state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the success criterion and the fallback clause; nothing is wasted and the key condition is not buried.

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 no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description should say what a call yields on success versus timeout, and roughly how long polling takes between samples. It states the success condition clearly but leaves the return contract and cadence unstated.

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 for both parameters. It names `service` and alludes to the timeout, but never explains the service identifier format or confirms the units of timeout_seconds (seconds, per the name and the default).

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 gives a specific verb and resource: poll live health of a named service until it passes. The two-consecutive-samples criterion and the timeout fallback make the purpose concrete and distinguishable from a single-shot get_service_health, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'until healthy ... (or time out)' suggests this is a post-remediation confirmation step, but the description never states when to reach for it instead of get_service_health, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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