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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false); the description goes well beyond them by disclosing that the restore is not just the page but also its connections and opportunities, that a not_found failure mode exists for already-live/nonexistent pages, and that a needs_confirmation response is possible. That last point is critical behavioral context an agent must plan for.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the trigger, parameter sourcing, and failure modes. No filler; every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and covers the failure (not_found) and confirmation (needs_confirmation) paths, which is the important part. It does not describe the success payload beyond the restored-page implication, a minor gap for a restore operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description exceeds it by explaining the workflow semantics behind approvalId ('from a prior needs_confirmation response, after the user has approved') and pageId's origin, tying the parameters into the confirmation loop rather than just restating them.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Puts a trashed page back on the map') and adds scope detail that distinguishes it from compass_pages_delete: it restores the page *plus* the connections and opportunities the delete removed. An agent can tell this apart from compass_pages_get, compass_pages_list, or compass_pages_delete without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit trigger ('Use when the user wants a deleted page back') and it even tells the agent where the pageId comes from (a prior compass_pages_delete, or the Compass trash). The failure condition ('not_found when the page is already live or never existed') effectively defines the when-not-to-call case, though no alternative tool is named for that situation.

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