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

Annotations establish the safety profile (write, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description still adds the 30-day restore window and discloses a side effect the annotations do not — the restore is recorded on the deal's timeline. That is genuine behavioral context beyond structured fields, though permissions/ownership requirements are unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the key constraint in the first clause; two sentences with no filler. The second sentence ('The bringing back is on the deal's timeline') is slightly awkward and could be tightened, but it carries real information.

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 simple one-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, eligibility window, and a side effect. Only the failure mode past 30 days and permission requirements are left unaddressed.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'id'. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail for the identifier, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 deleted deal back'), which is unambiguous even among similarly named siblings such as bring_a_card_back and restore_contact. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'within its 30 days' clause gives an implied eligibility condition for use, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. what to do past 30 days). Usage must be inferred from the time constraint.

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