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

Annotations already declare this a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the description's burden is lower. It adds two useful facts: the sheet must be owner-owned and the archive is time-limited by a retention deadline. It does not disclose what happens once the deadline passes, whether the sheet returns to its original location, or the permission requirements.

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 with zero filler; the scope qualifier and the deadline constraint both earn their place. It is arguably too terse for a mutation with a required idempotency key, but nothing is wasted.

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 described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still missing for a mutation tool: failure behavior when the retention deadline has passed and any permission/ownership requirements beyond the bare 'owner-owned' qualifier.

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 50%: idempotencyKey carries a thorough schema description while sheetId has none. The description adds no parameter detail and does not clarify whether sheetId is the archive identifier or the sheet identifier, which is the one real ambiguity left.

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 a scoped resource (owner-owned direct sheet archive), which implicitly distinguishes it from sheets_restore_folder and sheets_restore_version. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation requires the agent to infer from the qualifier 'direct sheet archive'.

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 phrase 'before its retention deadline' implies the condition under which restoring is valid, which is genuine usage context. However, it never says when to choose this over sheets_restore_version, sheets_restore_folder, or sheets_get_version_restore, nor points at sheets_list_archived as the discovery step.

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