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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context - a per-call cost of $0.001 and no charge on failure - which is useful for an agent deciding whether to retry, though it says nothing about what state change occurs or what permissions are required.

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 terse sentences with no waste: the effect is front-loaded and the cost caveat follows. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 one-parameter mutation whose annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description supplies the missing commercial dimension (cost, and cost on failure). It stops short of stating the permission model or confirming that other account data is untouched, which are minor omissions for this simplicity level.

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 'person' parameter already documents that an id or email is accepted, so the description carries no additional parameter burden. No format, lookup, or ambiguity guidance is added beyond the schema.

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 outcome verb+resource: re-enabling sign-in for a suspended person, which is clearly the inverse of directory_suspend_user in the sibling list. It never names the sibling alternative to route against, but the 'suspended' precondition makes the intent unambiguous.

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 'a suspended person' - the agent can infer this applies to accounts restored after suspension. There is no explicit statement of prerequisites (admin rights, whether the person must currently be suspended) or of alternates such as directory_update_user.

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