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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true and destructive=false, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: referencing playlists/screens resume automatically, per-kind permission requirements (e.g. playlist.delete), and that purging is out of scope. It stops short of noting irreversibility or failure modes, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loads verb and scope efficiently, and every sentence carries useful information about side effects, permissions, and exclusions. Slight redundancy from referencing list_recycle_bin twice (for kind and again at the end) prevents a full 5.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation; annotations cover safety, and the description supplies prerequisite, permission model, side effects, and exclusions. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and both params (id, kind with an enum) are documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description only echoes that kind/id come from list_recycle_bin, adding no new syntax or format detail.

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) plus resource (soft-deleted recycle bin item) and scope (ONE), and explicitly ties the kind to list_recycle_bin, distinguishing it from that sibling and from purge operations. An agent can identify the action without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite/alternative path ('Find the kind and id with list_recycle_bin first') and a clear exclusion ('Purging (permanent deletion) is not part of this tool'), so both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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