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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation is a restore of previously archived ads and supports bulk restore, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or behavior on non-archived/invalid ids — relevant gaps for a mutation with no output schema.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the object. Nothing 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?

For a one-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is adequate to call the tool correctly. It falls short only on edge-case behavior (invalid ids, ads not in archived state) which an agent might want before bulk-calling.

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 the single parameter is fully documented, including bulk semantics and minItems, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'one or more' is consistent with the schema but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond it; 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?

Specific verb (unarchive/restore) plus resource (ads), with 'previously archived' clarifying the state transition. It does not name the inverse sibling archive_ad explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'previously archived' — the agent can infer this only applies to ads currently in the archived state. There are no explicit preconditions, no guidance on what happens if an ad is not archived, and no mention of alternatives such as re-creating or re-adding an ad via create_update_* tools.

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