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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that results include retention duration ('how long the trash keeps them') and that an admin role plus audit-log plan is required, which an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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 the core purpose, then adds the permission constraint and the injection warning in compact form. The security sentence is boilerplate but justified for CRM field data and costs little; still, three distinct concerns in one short description is close to the limit.

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 output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, the retention detail, and the permission gate. The remaining gap is the partially undocumented pagination/search parameters, which is a modest omission for a read-only 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 description coverage is only 25% (just workspaceId), so the description partly carries the burden by enumerating the record types that map to the 'source' enum. It says nothing about limit bounds, search behavior, or defaults, leaving the other three parameters undocumented in both places.

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 records in the trash that can still be restored') and enumerates the covered record types. The phrase 'in the trash that can still be restored' cleanly separates it from the sibling list_records, which lists live records.

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 a clear access precondition ('Only a workspace admin on a plan with the audit log may use it'), which tells the agent when the call will succeed. It does not name alternatives such as restore_record or delete_record or state when to prefer them, 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.