goodnotes_verify_restored_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it will not re-issue a Recover operation and will not rewrite existing receipts, telling the agent this is a side-effect-free, idempotent check. It does not describe what the check returns or how identity/content matching is judged.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key behavioral guarantee. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 no output schema, the description should convey what a successful check yields (a boolean, an identity match report, a content diff). It omits return semantics entirely, though it does cover the mutation-safety angle well for a single-parameter read tool.

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?

There is one required parameter, trashOperationId, with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema supplies only a name and a regex pattern. The description never explains what the ID refers to, where the agent obtains it, or whether it must be the original trash operation rather than a restore operation. With low coverage the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 names a specific verb ('Independently check') and a specific resource ('a trashed document ... returned with its original identity and content'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling restore/verify_restore tools that perform the recovery. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to contrast with, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Never sends Recover again or rewrites old receipts' implies this is the post-restore, non-mutating verification step, which hints at when to use it. However, it never states the precondition (e.g. use after goodnotes_restore_document) or contrasts itself with goodnotes_verify_restore, leaving the agent to infer the sequencing.

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