Two tools with minimal descriptions (both under 100 chars) and incomplete parameter documentation. get_task has optional parameters with weak descriptions ('Asynchronous endpoint the task was created on. Defaults to the line's only asynchronous endpoint.'). check_pricing lacks any parameter descriptions beyond bare names. Neither tool documents output schema structure. No error handling guidance. Naming is acceptable (verb_noun pattern), but parameter constraints are missing (e.g., no enum for 'action' or 'model' even though they accept specific values from contract). No evidence of input validation or recovery guidance in tool implementations.

• Expand tool descriptions to 100-200 chars. For get_task: 'Fetch the current status and result payload for a Recraft image generation task. Use this to poll async task progress. Returns task_id, status (pending|processing|completed|failed), and output URLs if ready.'
• Add parameter descriptions: action should explain 'The async endpoint where the task was created (e.g., generate_image, upscale). Defaults to the only endpoint if only one exists.' Model should explain 'RunAPI model slug (e.g., recraft-v3, recraft-v3-turbo). Defaults to the primary model for the endpoint.'
• Document output schema in tool descriptions. E.g., 'Returns {task_id, status, task: {id, status, output_urls: [string], created_at, updated_at}}'.
• Add error recovery guidance: 'If task not found, verify task_id is correct. If task is still pending after 60s, retry with exponential backoff.' Include in description or as a separate 'hints' field.
• Convert action and model parameters to enums in Zod schemas using z.enum([...]) to prevent invalid values and self-document valid options.