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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and nothing in the description contradicts that. The description adds that this is a private, connection-card-internal operation, which is useful behavioral framing, but it doesn't disclose what state the restore mutates or what the resume_token is bound to.

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 the most important constraint (never call directly) placed second but unmistakably. No filler, though the first sentence could carry slightly more concrete purpose information in the same space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is simple with a single string parameter. For a tool agents are forbidden to call, the description is nearly sufficient, but a reader still cannot say what 'resume' does beyond the name.

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 required parameter, resume_token, with 0% schema description coverage and no enum, and the description says nothing about it. The only hint is the tool name implying a token from a prior suspension, which is inference rather than documentation.

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 identifies the tool's role as a 'Private MCP Apps connection-card helper' and the title adds 'Restore original question', so the domain is clear. However, it never states what 'resume' actually restores or returns, so the verb+resource pairing is only inferable from the title, not the description.

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 unambiguous exclusion: 'Models must never call this tool directly.' That is exactly the routing signal an agent needs for this tool, so misuse is prevented. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't say who does invoke it or which sibling handles the agent-facing equivalent of resuming a question.

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