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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the 30-day recovery window, that content is preserved rather than regenerated, and the state transition to DRAFT for scheduled/publishing posts (with the reason: schedules were purged). This is exactly the side-effect context the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) do not carry.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then escalation to behavior, then limits, then the state-transition edge case. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the recovery window plus state-transition behavior cover the main risks. Gaps: no mention of permissions/auth requirements, what error a second restore of the same post yields (relevant given idempotentHint=false), and no routing to the batch sibling.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema itself documents post_id thoroughly ('Numeric post_id of a post currently in the trash...'). The description adds no format, source, or validation details about post_id beyond the implicit 'a post', so it neither compensates for the reported coverage gap nor adds new meaning.

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 specific verb and resource ('Bring a post back from the trash') and clarifies a semantic point agents would otherwise get wrong: it recovers the original object rather than creating a replacement. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'restore_posts', leaving the singular/plural split for the agent to infer.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: only valid within 30 days of deletion, and it explains the resulting state for SCHEDULED/PUBLISHING posts. Missing is an explicit exclusion pointing to 'restore_posts' for batch restores or 'get_posts' to locate a trashed post_id.

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