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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, destructive, idempotent write, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds the meaningful consequence — the attempt will be charged on its date again — which tells the agent this re-enables a real charge, and labels the operation WRITE with the endpoint. It stops short of noting permissions or behavior when the attempt isn't skipped, but adds genuine context.

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 compact sentences with zero waste: the WRITE marker and the resulting behavior are front-loaded, followed by the endpoint. Nothing extraneous.

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?

With only two fully described params, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient — it explains the operation and its effect. Minor gaps remain around preconditions and error behavior, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are documented in-schema, including that billing_attempt_id comes from get_subscription. The description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Bring back a skipped billing attempt') plus the outcome ('charged on its date again'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like skip_billing_attempt, delete_billing_attempt, and reschedule_billing_attempt.

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 effect of use is clear (restores charging on the original date), implying this is the inverse of skipping. However, it never states when to choose this over reschedule_billing_attempt or delete_billing_attempt, nor any precondition such as the attempt actually being skipped.

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