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

The description says 'Delete', yet the annotations declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, which understates an irreversible removal of a registry record. The added authorization constraint ('Only the registering workspace can delete its token') is genuinely useful context that annotations do not provide, which keeps this above a 1.

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 sentences, no filler, with the action and the permitted trigger front-loaded before the permission caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description only covers the token-deletion path and ignores the second mode exposed by the schema, where caseId plus purchaseId release a purchase row from Book. With 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the agent is left to infer which parameter combination is valid for which mode.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the optional token, caseId and purchaseId is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or combination guidance beyond the note about token ownership, so the baseline 3 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 and resource — 'Delete a financed invoice registration from the blind anti-fraud registry' — which is clearly distinguishable from the sibling register_financed_invoice. However, it never names the counterpart tool, so the agent must infer the pairing itself.

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 lifecycle trigger ('when the invoice is paid off or withdrawn') that tells the agent when this tool applies. It stops short of naming alternatives, so it does not help the agent decide between releasing by token versus by case/purchase row, or versus check_invoice_financed first.

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