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

The description goes beyond the annotations by mentioning the observable effect of restoring a company: the public career site comes back online. It does not reveal extended side effects, auth requirements, or edge cases, but the existing annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint) already cover the overall safety profile.

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 one front-loaded, informative sentence with no filler or repetition. It renders the essential purpose and an observable consequence with minimal packing.

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 simple restore operation with a single parameter, the description covers the main purpose and effect but it does not explicitly describe the parameter semantics, expected return, or potential error conditions. It is adequate for a low-complexity tool but not exhaustive.

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 input schema has only a numeric `id` with no descriptions, and the description does not explicitly state that `id` is the company ID. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it does not do so, leaving the agent to rely on the tool name and the phrase 'company' for inference.

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 states a very specific action, 'Restore a soft-deleted company', and adds an outside consequence (career site comes back online). This clearly distinguishes it from adjacent tools like hires_create_company, hires_delete_company, and hires_update_company.

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 intended use is implicitly clear: to use when a company has been soft-deleted and needs to be brought back. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or alternatives to consider, which leaves the agent to infer the appropriate condition.

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