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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by disclosing the cascade behavior (restoring documents also restores associated payments) and idempotency. This goes beyond the annotation hints and clarifies the side effects of the operation.

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?

Two sentences convey the core action, the key behavioral nuance (cascade restore), and idempotency with zero wasted words. The most critical information (what it does and its safe-to-call nature) is front-loaded.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the primary operation, the cascade side effect, and idempotency—all that an agent needs to call it correctly. No critical information is missing.

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 100%, with both parameters (id and entity) fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail; it focuses on behavior rather than parameter syntax or allowed values, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 'Restore' and the resource 'binned (soft-deleted) record' identified by kind + id, explicitly undoing a delete. It distinguishes from sibling delete_* tools by being the inverse operation, and the mention of specific document types clarifies scope without ambiguity.

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 implies the tool is used when a record is binned and needs to be restored, and it explicitly notes idempotency ('restoring a record that is not binned changes nothing'), which guides safe usage. It does not mention alternatives like list_binned to obtain the id, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the workflow.

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