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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the restored location is the original folder (or the space root if the folder is gone) and tabs and share links are restored with it. It omits auth/permission requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tightly written sentence, front-loaded with the core action, then the destination detail, then the discovery pointer. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. With annotations carrying the safety profile and the description covering destination semantics, restored contents, and how to obtain the ID, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents documentId as coming 'from list_trash'. The description repeats that same pointer, adding no new syntax or format meaning beyond the structured field, 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 ('Bring a deleted document back') and resource (document), and the tool name plus resource make it unambiguous against siblings like restore_diagram. It goes further by specifying the restore destination, which pins down exactly what the operation does.

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?

'Find it with list_trash' supplies the concrete discovery path for the required documentId, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., what to do if the document is not in the Trash or was never deleted), so it is clear context without full when/when-not coverage.

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