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

Annotations already indicate the operation is mutating, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the invoice reappears in active lists, content is preserved, and only invoices owned by the connected company are eligible. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action, then states the result and the key constraint. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the output schema, full parameter coverage, and annotations, the description is nearly complete for a straightforward mutation. It could have explicitly mentioned the version-concurrency requirement or pointed to archive_invoice, but the schema descriptions already cover those details.

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 each parameter (id, idempotencyKey, expectedVersion) already has a meaningful schema description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 resource ('archived invoice') and clearly states the outcome: the invoice returns to active lists. It also notes that document content is unchanged, distinguishing it from related operations like archive_invoice without ambiguity.

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 description provides clear context: the tool is for restoring an archived invoice, and it adds the ownership constraint ('owned by the connected guest company'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the sibling set and the verb make the intended use obvious.

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