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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the description's job is to add context. It adds the 30-day recoverability window and the list-vs-restore dual behavior, which an agent could not infer from the annotations. It does not say whether a restored recipe returns to its original cookbook or meal plan, so a small gap remains.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The usage trigger is front-loaded and the mode distinction follows immediately, so the agent gets the condition and the calling convention in one pass.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations that carry the safety profile, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: the time window, both modes, and the effect of the parameter. Nothing essential is missing.

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% and the single parameter is already documented, so the baseline would be 3. The description still adds meaning by framing recipeId as a mode switch (present = restore, absent = list) rather than just an identifier, which helps the agent decide whether to call with or without it.

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 (restore) and resource (recipe) and immediately scopes it: deleted through an assistant within the last 30 days. It also explains the two operating modes, which separates it cleanly from siblings like delete_recipe and get_recipe.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition ('when the user wants a recipe back that was deleted through an assistant in the last 30 days') and explains that omitting recipeId lists candidates while supplying it performs the restore. There is no explicit exclusion naming an alternative sibling, which keeps it short of a 5.

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