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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals meaningful post-call state changes: on free plans 'the drop comes back at the 90-day lifetime' and on paid plans 'the drop never expires again' — a significant, quasi-permanent consequence. It also discloses the auth-key requirement. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, the auth requirement is placed in a parenthetical, and the plan-dependent rules are compressed into parallel clauses. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity — auth requirement, two plan tiers, differing expiry windows — the description covers all major decision factors. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The only minor ambiguity is the exact meaning of 'the 90-day lifetime' (from what reference point), which is a small gap.

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% — the slug parameter is already documented in the input schema as 'the subdomain part of its shipped.run URL.' The description adds no param-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

Uses a specific verb ('bring back') tied to a concrete resource ('an expired drop') with additional scoping constraints: 'owned by the authenticated account' and 'while its files are still retained.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like delete_drop, list_drops, and claim_drop, and adds substantive detail beyond the title.

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?

Supplies concrete when-to-use conditions: an explicit auth prerequisite ('requires an sp_ API key') and eligibility windows ('Free accounts restore up to 30 days past expiry... paid plans restore up to 90 days past expiry'). It does not name sibling alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the window and retention conditions effectively bound its applicability.

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