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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations lack: a per-call cost of $0.001 and the failure-pricing rule ('nothing if it fails'), which is exactly the kind of billing behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the cost caveat follows. Every clause 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 single-parameter, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers the action and the billing consequence. It omits edge behavior (error when the contact is not archived, whether related records/logs resurface), which would complete the picture but is not essential to calling it 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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden but says nothing about contact_id. The parameter name is self-explanatory (positive integer id), so the practical gap is small, but no format, source, or lookup guidance is offered.

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 and resource ('Bring an archived contact back'), which is precisely the inverse of the sibling crm_archive_contact and distinct from crm_restore_company. An agent can select it without opening the 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 phrase 'archived contact' implies the precondition that the record must already be archived, but the description never states when to use this versus crm_update_contact or crm_save_contact, nor what happens if the contact is not archived. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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