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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational facts not in structured fields: a cost of $0.001 per call and no charge on failure, plus the downstream surfaces affected by a restore. It omits permission/auth requirements and what the response contains.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the effect of the operation front-loaded before the pricing note. Every clause carries information an agent would not otherwise have.

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 single-parameter state-change tool with rich annotations and no output schema, most of what an agent needs is present. However, the description does not say how to identify or obtain the company_id, nor whether restoring is safe to retry across a shared ID, leaving a real gap given the zero-coverage schema.

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 single parameter company_id is never mentioned in the description — no guidance on whether it is the archived company's ID or where to obtain it (crm_find_companies / crm_get_company). With only one obvious identifier parameter the gap is mild rather than fatal, so a middling score.

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 (restore) and resource (an archived company) and even enumerates the concrete effects of restoration: lists, searches, duplicates and exports. An agent can distinguish it from crm_archive_company (inverse) and crm_restore_contact (different resource) 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?

The condition for use is explicit — the company must be archived — which gives clear context. It does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g. what to do if the company is not archived, or whether merging is preferable to restoring a duplicate), so it stops short of the top band.

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