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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the undo/trash semantics, the two refusal conditions, and the ownership restriction (own entries only). It stops short of describing state transitions such as whether the restored entry keeps its original id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence defining the operation, followed by the refusal conditions. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the most decision-relevant facts come first.

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, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the ownership restriction and refusal conditions, an agent has everything needed to decide whether to call this tool and predict the outcome.

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 100%, so both userId and entryId are already documented in the schema, and the description adds little parameter-level detail. The 'signed-in person's own' phrasing does reinforce why userId is usually unnecessary, but this is already in the schema text, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Brings ... time entries back from Trash') and immediately tags it as 'the undo for deleting one', which pins the inverse relationship to delete_time_entry without naming it awkwardly. It also scopes the operation to the signed-in person's own entries, so an agent can distinguish it from list/delete siblings.

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 description gives explicit refusal conditions: a live entry already holding the same hours, or a day inside a week already filed. These are concrete when-not-to-use signals an agent can check before calling, which is unusually strong for a restore tool.

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