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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation is admin-only, and it fails on purged records older than 30 days. This clarifies auth requirements and failure conditions. There is no contradiction with the idempotentHint or destructiveHint 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 is two concise sentences with the action front-loaded and constraints added efficiently. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states the operation and target, the second gives auth and failure information. No unnecessary words.

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 tool, the description covers the action, the object state, the authorization requirement, and the key failure boundary. It does not describe the success response, but with no output schema and a simple operation, the provided information is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema provides lead_id as a required UUID but no description. The tool description adds meaning by clarifying that the ID must reference a soft-deleted lead in the recycle bin and that a purged record will cause failure. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 verb and resource: 'Restore a soft-deleted lead from the recycle bin.' This unambiguously explains what the tool does and distinguishes it from crm_create_lead, crm_delete_lead, crm_update_lead, and the sibling restore tools for other entities.

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: use this tool to restore a lead that has been soft-deleted and is still in the recycle bin. It also gives an implicit boundary by warning that restoration fails if the record was purged more than 30 days ago, but it does not explicitly mention sibling tools such as list_trash for locating the lead or alternatives for active leads.

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