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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing side effects that annotations cannot express — journal entries leaving the books, the pay-date action being switched off, the no-op preview behavior with reason 'confirm-required', and the locked-period refusal. This is exactly the extra context the bar asks for.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing, with the destructive effect front-loaded and the confirm protocol second. Slightly dense phrasing ('answers reason confirm-required') but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still tells the agent what the unconfirmed call returns (a reason and a preview of what would be removed) and what failure mode to expect. For a destructive two-parameter tool this is complete enough to drive correct invocation.

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 only 50% (id is undocumented), so the description must compensate, and it does for confirm: it explains the preview-then-confirm contract and that confirm true must only be sent after user agreement. The id parameter is left implicit but is unambiguous given the tool name.

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 ('Move a pay run and its payslips to the bin') and immediately clarifies this is a reversible soft delete rather than a hard removal, which distinguishes it from the sibling delete_payslips. An agent can tell exactly what the call does 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 an explicit two-step protocol: call without confirm to preview, ask the user, then call with confirm true — plus the refusal condition for locked periods. It never names the nearest alternatives (delete_payslips, restore_deleted) as a routing hint, so it falls just short of a 5.

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