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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds two meaningful behavioral details: the requirement of the workspace-admin audit-log entitlement and a security note that CRM field values are untrusted user content. These go beyond the structured annotations, though it does not describe return format or pagination.

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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and the prerequisite, and the second sentence is a concise security note. Every word earns its place; it is efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description leaves gaps: it does not explain the parameters (especially search and source), nor what the response looks like. It does provide the key purpose and a security note, but given low schema coverage, more parameter explanation would be expected. It is adequate but not complete.

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 description does not explain any of the four parameters (limit, search, source, workspaceId). Schema coverage is only 25% (only workspaceId has a description), and the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics. The schema provides some defaults and enums, but the description adds no extra meaning to any parameter.

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?

The description states the specific action 'List recoverable CRM records' which clearly indicates it returns deleted/recoverable records, distinct from list_records which likely lists active ones. The phrase 'recoverable' ties it to the restore workflow, and the title confirms 'deleted records'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_records, search, and restore_record.

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 mentions the required entitlement and permissions, which is a prerequisite condition, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_records or search. The context implies it is for deleted records, but no explicit guidance or exclusions are provided.

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