recovery_offer

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the deterministic behavior ('Answerable with certainty'), the never-returns-safe result, and the reasoning process about legitimate recovery channels. This is strong transparency, though it does not cover all parameter behaviors.

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 a coherent paragraph of about 5 sentences, efficiently conveying key concepts. It is well-structured and front-loaded, but contains some complex sentences that could be simplified. Still among the better examples.

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 no output schema and sparse schema descriptions, the description effectively covers the tool's purpose, logic, and expected results. It adequately informs an agent about what the tool does and how to interpret its output, though it lacks a detailed return format explanation.

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 coverage is only 17% (only 'address' described). The description adds meaning by explaining why parameters like 'asksForSignature' and 'asksForUpfrontPayment' are critical, but does not explicitly describe each parameter or their types. It partially compensates for low coverage.

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 judges recovery offers for stolen funds, using the specific verb 'judge' and resource 'offer to recover already-stolen funds'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'trace_theft' by focusing on offers rather than tracking, providing a unique purpose.

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 implicitly tells when to use by describing the nature of recovery offers, but does not explicitly state 'use this when you receive a recovery request' or contrast with other tools. It lacks direct usage guidance or exclusion criteria.

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