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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly conveys the core state transition (trash to restored), but does not disclose potential side effects such as child page restoration, idempotency, permission requirements, or what happens if the page is not in trash.

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?

One clear, front-loaded sentence with no redundant content. Every word contributes to the understanding of the operation.

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 low-complexity tool with a single documented parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. Minor gaps remain around edge cases and return behavior, but an agent can correctly identify and invoke the tool with the information provided.

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 single parameter page_id is already fully described in the input schema ('The UUID of the deleted page'), with 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context, so it meets the baseline but does not go beyond it.

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 uses a specific verb ('restore') and identifies both the resource ('deleted page') and the source state ('trash'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like restore_folder, restore_block_version, and permanent_delete_page.

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 case is clear: restoring a page that has been deleted and is currently in trash. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the explicit page/trash context prevents confusion with restore_folder, restore_block_version, or permanent_delete_page.

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