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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true`, and the description adds the further behavioral detail of deletion-time ordering, plus the non-obvious edge case that payments associated with a deleted document are hidden from this listing and only reappear after restore. It does not contradict the annotation and adds useful semantic behavior beyond the schema.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first front-loads the main action and scope, the second adds the crucial edge case. There is no filler, and every clause adds information directly useful to deciding and invoking the tool.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation without an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is listed, what is excluded, and the ordering. The payment caveat also prevents a realistic misunderstanding about what shows up in the result set.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the parameter schema to explain. The absence of any parameters is accurately reflected by the empty `properties` object, and the description does not need to elaborate on parameter usage.

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 ('List') and a precise resource ('binned soft-deleted records'), then enumerates all covered record types and specifies sorting ('newest deletion first'). It clearly distinguishes this list tool from brothers that list active records (list_invoices, list_clients, etc.) by its exclusive focus on binned items.

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?

It provides a clear context: use this to see binned records for the business, and it adds an important functional caveat that binned document payments are not separately listed but will be restored with their document. It does not explicitly name alternatives like `restore_deleted` or state 'when not to use it', but its purpose itself implies the use case.

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