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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds substantive behavior: a 30-day restorable window, newest-first ordering, and the erasure deadline per item. Pagination or result-size behavior is not mentioned, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope and ordering, followed by the field summary and the restore routing. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by enumerating kind, id, name, deletion time, and erasure time. Missing pagination/count behavior for potentially long lists is the only notable gap.

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?

With zero parameters the baseline is 4, and nothing here detracts. It usefully adds cross-tool semantics by showing how the returned 'id' maps into restore_proposal's proposal_id and restore_folder's folder_id, which is not derivable from this tool's own schema.

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 ('List pages and folders') plus an explicit scope ('deleted in the last 30 days that can still be restored') and ordering ('newest first'). This clearly separates it from list_proposals/list_folders (live content) and from restore_proposal/restore_folder (mutations).

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?

The description gives clear context for use—only recoverable, recently deleted items are returned—and names the exact follow-up tools with parameter mappings ('restore_proposal (proposal_id = id)', 'restore_folder (folder_id = id)'). It doesn't explicitly say what to use for older/permanently deleted items or for live content, so it falls just short of naming all alternatives.

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