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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a list operation, and the description adds behavior the annotation cannot: only items still restorable are returned, each carries a days_left countdown to permanent erasure, and cancelled_invites do not return after restore. That is meaningful consequence information for the restore workflow, though nothing is said about ordering or result-set size.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource and the Slack-workspace exclusion before the field list and follow-up pointer. The nested parentheticals make it dense to parse in one pass, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the scope, the returned field semantics (notably the days_left expiry and the irreversibility of cancelled invites) and the next-step tool. Only result ordering/limits are unaddressed, which is minor for a parameterless listing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema provides nothing and the baseline of 4 applies. The description goes further by enumerating the fields the agent will receive (project_id, name, deleted_at, days_left, cancelled_invites), which is useful since there is no output schema.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ('shared projects — group chats — that you deleted and can still restore') and explicitly excludes the common confusion with Slack workspaces. The parenthetical disambiguation plus the 'deleted/restorable' scope separates it cleanly from the sibling list_shared_projects.

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 clause 'Use the project_id with restore_shared_project' tells the agent this is the discovery step preceding a restore, which is real routing guidance. It does not explicitly name list_shared_projects as the tool for non-deleted projects, leaving that comparison implicit.

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