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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations by disclosing the retention rule (purgeAt is epoch ms, 30 days after deletion), what deletedBy encodes (you/person/agent with label semantics), and what canEdit gates. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to decide whether restoration is still possible.

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 what is listed, then the purge/restore constraint, then the field semantics, then the default scoping — a sensible order. Slightly dense with backtick-heavy field explanations, but nearly every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description usefully explains the retention/restore path and default scoping, leaving no gap an agent would need to guess at for a zero-required-parameter list 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already covers the from-list_workspaces sourcing, the scope change, and the membership requirement. The description restates that behavior rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (projects in Recently deleted) with the exact shape of each entry, which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_projects and list_versions. An agent knows exactly what it will get back 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?

Explains the default scope (caller's personal deleted projects) versus the workspaceId-scoped behavior, and points at list_workspaces as the source of the id and restore_project as the follow-up action. It never explicitly says when NOT to use it (e.g., use list_projects for live projects), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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