Get recovery observability report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false. The description adds only the authorization class 'board_or_agent', which is a useful but minimal addition. No other behavioral details are disclosed.

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 very short but includes a redundant first sentence that repeats the title. The endpoint and authorization class are useful, but overall it could be more efficient by combining sentences.

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 tool has two undocumented parameters and a nested input schema, the description fails to provide essential context about the report's scope or the effect of parameters. The output schema exists but is not referenced. Auth info is the only addition beyond the schema.

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%, and the description does not explain the purpose or format of the 'weeks' or 'threshold' parameters. The agent must infer their meaning from context or guess, which is inadequate for a tool with an output schema available.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'recovery observability report', and provides the API endpoint. However, it does not detail what the report contains, which could confuse an agent about the specific data returned.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as pc_get_issues_by_id_recovery_actions. The authorization class is mentioned but not elaborated. No when-not-to-use context is provided.

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