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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the delete is soft, history persists, erasure is final at 30 days, and recovery is possible via the deals screen. This is exactly the extra context an agent needs and cannot infer from the annotation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the retention nuance in parentheses; no wasted words.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations already declaring the destructive profile, the description supplies the one missing piece (soft-delete semantics and 30-day recovery window). Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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?

Only one parameter ('id') with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents its type and format (uuid). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond 'by id'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 deal by id') and parenthetically clarifies the scope of deletion (soft, recoverable within 30 days). This distinguishes it from a hard-delete reading and gestures at restore_a_deal, though it does not name the sibling explicitly.

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 conveys when the action is reversible ('the deals screen can bring it back until then'), which is useful context, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, e.g. that restore_a_deal is the counterpart to undo it.

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