recover_receipt_omission

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it reads from the local store, handles chunk_id for partial recovery, and includes a 'verified=true' flag when content is provably identical. It also clarifies that recovery is 'byte-for-byte' and 'never a guess.' There is no contradiction with missing annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence contributes unique information: purpose, contrast with siblings, condition for use, parameter usage, and verification behavior. No extraneous words 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?

Given the existence of an output schema (not shown) and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool recovers, prerequisites, parameter semantics, and verification. It does not mention error handling or invalid inputs, but those are likely covered in the output schema. It is largely complete for effective use.

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 explains the 'chunk_id' parameter reasonably ('Pass chunk_id to recover one chunk, or leave it empty to recover everything'). However, it does not explicitly describe the format or purpose of 'receipt_json' beyond the implicit context of recovering omitted content. This adds value but is incomplete.

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 the tool's action: 'Recover the full text of context a Context Receipt omitted.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'explain_receipt_omission' by explaining that receipts explain what was dropped, while this tool returns the exact content. The verb 'recover' and resource 'receipt omission' are specific and unambiguous.

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 usage conditions: works only on receipts created with 'recoverable=True' and specifies how to use the 'chunk_id' parameter to recover one chunk or everything. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among siblings, missing some guidance.

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