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

The annotations cover the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description is correctly lower-burden here. It still adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: calling with no company silently becomes a read/list operation returning the passed-on companies newest-first. It doesn't say what happens if the company was never passed on or the name is ambiguous.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing, with the primary restore action stated first and the no-argument fallback second. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return behavior – and it does for the empty-argument path. It leaves the restore path's outcome (confirmation payload, error on unknown/ambiguous company) unstated, which is the one gap for a state-changing tool.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that the value identifies the company to restore and that empty means list – the description repeats rather than extends it. The only added semantic is the 'newest first' ordering on the empty case, which is return behavior, not parameter meaning.

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: it moves a company the rep passed on back into their suggestions. The second sentence clarifies the second mode (no argument). It's clearly distinguishable from pass_company, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

"Brings a company the rep passed on back into their suggestions" gives a concrete when-to-use condition, and "Leave empty to see what was passed on" routes the discovery case. No explicit when-not or named alternative tool (e.g., pass_company to reverse this) is given.

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