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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: queries 'spend budget again', skipped checks 'are not made up', unresumable items surface in a 'failed' field, and 'Safe to retry' reinforces the idempotentHint. These are exactly the operational consequences an agent needs.

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?

Four dense, front-loaded clauses with no filler; the core action leads and budget/retry caveats follow. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still notes the 'failed' reporting, budget cost, and non-backfill behavior. Nothing essential to correct invocation 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does clarify the 100-item cap on trackedQueryIds ('up to 100'), but organizationId and projectId are left unexplained. Partial compensation justifies a middling score.

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 and resource ('Restart the checks of ... paused tracked queries'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling pause_tracked_queries. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_usage to observe the budget effect, and scoping to 'paused' queries is clear. It does not contrast with other resume-like siblings (e.g. run_checks), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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