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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — the page returns at the same address — but says nothing about failure modes (e.g., what happens if the page was never taken down) or any permission requirements.

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?

One short sentence with zero redundancy and the action front-loaded. Its brevity borders on under-specification, but every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter restore tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action but leaves the sole parameter undocumented and omits error/edge-case behavior, so it is only adequately complete.

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 0% and the description never mentions the single required parameter content_piece_id. The agent must rely entirely on the parameter name to infer that it identifies the hosted page to restore.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it puts a taken-down hosted page back online. The phrase 'taken-down page' implicitly distinguishes it from the take_page_down sibling, but it never names that counterpart or the hosted_pages tool directly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'taken-down page' — the agent must infer this applies solely to pages previously removed via take_page_down. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative sibling.

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