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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details: the authentication requirement, file retention dependency, restore windows, and resulting lifetime behavior. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the core action and key prerequisite, the second summarizes plan-specific behavior. Every clause adds necessary information and the most important action is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description provides all essential operational context: ownership, authentication, retention condition, time limits, and post-restore lifetime. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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% with the only parameter, slug, fully described as the subdomain part of the drop URL. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the schema already handles it, 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?

The description states a specific verb ('bring back') and resource ('an expired drop owned by the authenticated account'), clearly differentiating it from siblings like delete_drop and list_drops. The scope is precise: restore only expired drops while files are still retained.

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 usage conditions: requires an sp_ API key, only works for expired drops, and applies different restore windows for free vs paid accounts. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the conditions make when-to-use clear.

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