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

Annotations only declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description goes well beyond them by disclosing what is restored (settings), what is deliberately left suspended/empty (geo targeting, blocked domains, unsupported actions), and the two error codes with their triggers.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, restoration semantics second, error conditions last. Every sentence adds information an agent needs and none is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the essentials for a single-parameter mutation: what it does, what state comes back, and the two failure modes. Annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing material is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the identifier's format or source (e.g., from list_deleted_sites), so baseline 3 applies.

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 (restore) and resource (deleted site) plus the effect on settings, so it is unambiguous against siblings like delete_site or create_site. It does not name list_deleted_sites, the natural precursor, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 failure conditions ('Returns 404 once the retention window has passed, and 403 site_limit_reached when you have no free slot') give clear context for when the call is valid and what blocks it. No alternatives are named and no exclusions beyond the two error cases are given.

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