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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the meaningful fact that a precondition ('eligible') gates the operation, but does not say how eligibility is determined or what failure looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate, though 'eligible' adds a vague constraint without elaboration.

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?

No output schema and 0% schema coverage means the description should resolve open questions: what eligibility means, whether a resource not in trash errors out, and how the SOURCE/dataset naming maps. It covers purpose but not these operational details, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does enumerate the resource kinds, which maps loosely to the resourceType enum, but it says 'dataset' while the enum value is 'SOURCE', and it says nothing about the resourceId UUID format. Partial compensation only.

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?

Clear specific verb (restore) plus the affected resources (dataset, collection, map, project) and the source state ('from trash'). It implicitly contrasts with the sibling geobble_resource_delete, though it doesn't name that alternative. The qualifier 'eligible' is left undefined, which slightly blunts the precision.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as geobble_resource_delete or geobble_resource_view. The word 'eligible' implies a precondition exists but never states what makes a resource eligible or what happens when it isn't, leaving the agent to guess.

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