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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining that unarchiving affects how asks and integrations treat the customer. It doesn't address edge cases like already-active customers, but that is minor given the idempotency hint.

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?

The substantive description is one concise, front-loaded sentence with a clear action and outcome. The repeated heading 'Unarchive Customer' is slightly redundant with the tool title, but the overall definition remains compact and scannable.

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 one-parameter mutation with a full input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description provides sufficient context. It tells the agent what to do and what downstream effect to expect. The only minor gap is behavior when the customer is already active, which is mitigated by idempotentHint=true.

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 100%; the single 'id' parameter is already described as a unique numeric identifier. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema fully documents the only parameter.

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 states a specific action verb ('Restore'), a specific resource ('an archived customer'), and a concrete outcome ('asks and integrations treat them as active again'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling archiveCustomer and any other tool.

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 implies the usage context clearly: use when a customer is archived and should become active again. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the inverse sibling archiveCustomer is evident from the wording, giving the agent enough context.

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