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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context: the plan is non-PII, expires after 30 days, and a not-found result indicates expiration, storage unavailability, or a wrong ID. It also instructs reviewing the restored plan with the user before request_quote, enriching behavioral understanding beyond the annotation hints.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage scenarios, a critical constraint, an example, and error-handling hints. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the use of `<examples>` and `<hints>` tags makes it scannable without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given the single parameter, read-only annotation, and presence of an output schema, the description is contextually complete. It covers when to use the tool, what happens on failure, the plan's 30-day validity, and the recommended workflow step before quoting, leaving no significant gaps for an agent.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for plan_id with a clear description and pattern. The description goes further by adding a practical guardrail ('DO NOT guess or enumerate plan IDs') and an example, which reinforces proper usage and adds value beyond the schema's technical specification.

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 clearly states the tool restores a complete non-PII staffing plan created by plan_staffing or save_staffing_plan within the last 30 days. This specific verb-resource pair (restore + plan) distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools that handle different domains such as availability, cities, or policies.

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?

Explicit when-to-use scenarios are provided: buyer starts a new conversation, changes agent platforms, or wants to continue a saved plan before requesting a quote. It also includes a do-not instruction (never guess or enumerate plan IDs) and an explicit alternative (re-run plan_staffing on not-found), giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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