lounge_recover_purchase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does exceptionally well: it discloses that retry reuses the original signed payment, never creates another authorization, requires no wallet key, persists signed retry data locally, and warns that closing an expired record may lose the payment/result. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, retry semantics, no-key guarantee, local storage, and the loss warning. The most important usage information is front-loaded, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly: when to use it, what each action means, side effects, prerequisites, and risk. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 effectively documents the action enum by explaining what retry and close_expired do, and 'explicitly accepting' maps to acknowledgeLoss. It never names acknowledgeLoss explicitly, so there is a small gap, but the meaning is strongly implied.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair: 'Inspect or recover the most recent purchase after a lost response.' It separates three distinct actions (inspect, retry, close_expired) and explains what retry does versus creating a new authorization, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from nearby purchase-related 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?

It clearly identifies the triggering context ('after a lost response') and gives action-specific guidance, especially for close_expired ('only after explicitly accepting that its payment/result may be lost'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the context and action semantics are strong enough.

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