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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile and repeat-safety are covered structurally. The description adds only the target scope ("current user's account"), with no mention of required permissions, failure modes, or what happens if the QR code was already restored.

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, the core action first and the input constraint second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, annotations carry the safety and idempotency profile, and the description covers the one non-obvious input requirement. Nothing essential for a correct call 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both params are optional with defaults, so the schema alone would not reveal that at least one is mandatory. The description's "Either idqrcode or shorturl_key must be provided" supplies that constraint, which is genuine added meaning above the baseline.

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 ("Restore a deleted QR code") plus the scope ("to the current user's account"), which an agent can act on directly. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling restore_deleted_project, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 usage context is implied by the name and the "deleted" qualifier, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing and no mention of the sibling restore_deleted_project or the list_deleted_projects prerequisite. The second sentence is input guidance rather than use-case guidance.

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