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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add context. It does add two valuable facts: the unit of work is an entire deletion batch (no selective restore) and the response is a restored-movement count. It stays silent on permissions, partial-failure behavior, and whether the lote expires.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the action and scope come first and the return value second.

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, no-output-schema tool, purpose, parameter provenance, and return value are all covered. Only edge-case behavior (irreversibility, partial failure) is missing, which is minor at this complexity.

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% and the single 'lote' parameter is a bare string, so the description must carry the meaning — and it does, tying 'lote' to a deletion batch obtainable from list_bank_trash. That is the key fact an agent needs to supply the value correctly.

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 (“bring back” = restore) and resource (all movements of one deletion batch), which is enough to distinguish it from any sibling. The word “bank” only appears in the name/title, not the description, so the resource is slightly less explicit than it could be.

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?

Points the agent at list_bank_trash as the source of the required 'lote', which is an implied prerequisite and a useful routing hint. It does not state when not to use it, whether a restore can be undone, or what happens if some movements still exist.

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