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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the auth requirement (sp_ key), the 90-day retention window, and the plan-dependent outcome where paid-plan drops never expire again after restore. It stops short of describing failure modes when files are no longer retained.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the eligibility constraints and the plan-dependent outcome in three compact clauses. Dense but every clause carries information; only the parenthetical auth note slightly interrupts flow.

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 no explanation. The description covers the eligibility window, auth requirement, and post-restore lifetime semantics, which is most of what an agent needs; it omits error behavior for drops past retention or already-restored drops.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the slug. The description adds no format, example, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline case.

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+resource ('Bring back an expired drop') scoped to the authenticated account, which cleanly separates it from siblings like claim_drop (new claim) and delete_drop (removal). An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: the drop must be expired, its files still retained, within 90 days past expiry, and an sp_ API key is required. It does not explicitly contrast with claim_drop or state what to do if the retention window has lapsed, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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