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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's added value is the 'purged after 30 days' retention policy plus the returned fields — genuine behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations. It omits auth requirements and pagination/volume behavior, keeping it at 4.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, followed by the retention constraint. No filler or repetition, though the field enumeration is slightly list-like rather than prose.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the 30-day purge window. Missing only auth/pagination context, which is minor at this complexity level.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema-coverage metric is moot. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline 4.

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 — 'Lists decks in the trash' — and enumerates the returned fields (trash_id, title, deleted_at, restore_until), which implicitly separates it from list_decks (active decks) and get_deck. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool surfaces trashed decks and their restore_until dates, which suggests a pre-restore workflow, but the description never says when to call this instead of list_decks or get_deck, nor routes to restore_deck. Implied usage only, so a 3.

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