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

Beyond the annotations, which already mark the operation non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent, the description adds concrete behavioral constraints: it is admin-only, acts on soft-deleted records, and fails if the record was purged after 30 days. This gives agents useful outcome expectations without contradicting the 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?

The description uses three short sentences, leading with the core action and object, then supplying two high-value constraints. Every sentence adds information and none is wasted.

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 single-parameter restore operation, the description covers what it does, the required permission, and the key failure condition. The annotations supply idempotency and destructive-safety signals, and no output schema is provided, so no return-value details are expected.

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 input schema only provides deal_id as a required UUID, with no parameter descriptions. The description compensates by making clear the deal is the soft-deleted object to be restored from the recycle bin, so the meaning of deal_id is inferable even though it is not explicitly restated.

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 opens with a specific action and object: 'Restore a soft-deleted deal from the recycle bin.' This clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes it from sibling restore tools for contacts, leads, projects, and tasks.

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 clearly establishes the situation in which the tool applies: restoring a soft-deleted deal. It also adds an admin-only prerequisite and a 30-day purge limitation. It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling restore tools, but the deal-specific scope gives enough context.

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