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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and mutability profile. The description's only behavioral note—'Limitations: write operation'—simply restates readOnlyHint=false and adds no further context (e.g., idempotency behavior, error conditions, or side effects).

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence ('Limitations: write operation') is redundant with the annotations, but the overall length is appropriate and not bloated.

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 simple restore tool with annotations covering the write/non-destructive profile and no output schema, the description covers purpose and endpoint adequately. However, it omits prerequisites (customer must be archived), expected behavior on failure, and idempotency details, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds only the endpoint path '/customers/open/:customer_id', which implicitly confirms customer_id is the target, but provides no extra semantics for the other five parameters.

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 ('restores/reopens') and resource ('an archived customer'), clearly distinguishing the action from siblings like archive_customer, delete_customer, or update_customer. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous and the endpoint path adds precision.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_customer or archive_customer). It does not state prerequisites such as the customer must already be archived, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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