recover_receipt_omission

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: the recovery bundle is read from the local store, and results carry 'verified=true' only when provably identical via fingerprint and storage-integrity hash. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or any side effects, but covers the verification mechanism and storage source.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the main purpose, then explains conditions, usage options, and the verification guarantee. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the complexity.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers parameters, usage conditions, and return behavior adequately. It lacks details on error scenarios or what happens with invalid receipts, but overall provides sufficient context for a recovery tool with moderate complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for 'chunk_id' (optional, used for partial recovery) and implies 'receipt_json' is the receipt to recover from. However, it does not elaborate on the format or constraints of 'receipt_json', leaving some ambiguity. The description compensates partially but could be more detailed.

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 clearly states it recovers full text omitted by a Context Receipt, using a specific verb 'Recover' and object 'omitted text'. It distinguishes from sibling 'explain_receipt_omission' by emphasizing it returns the exact content byte-for-byte, not just an explanation.

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 provides clear conditions for use: works only on receipts created with 'recoverable=True', and offers guidance on partial recovery via 'chunk_id'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives beyond the implicit contrast with 'explain_receipt_omission'.

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