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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds genuinely new behavior — that the delete is reversible for 30 days and does not settle the underlying obligation. It does not disclose the response shape, but with annotations carrying the safety profile the disclosure is well above the bar.

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 destructive-and-irreversible-in-perception warning is front-loaded and the restore path follows immediately; every sentence maps to a decision. The trailing disclaimer about estimates and advice is boilerplate that does not help select or invoke the tool.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers semantics, recovery, id sourcing, and the sibling to use instead. The only unaddressed element is what a successful call returns, which is minor absent an output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description has to compensate: it tells the agent the single argument is a debt id and where to obtain it (beyondpayday_list_debts). The uuid format is already in the schema, so nothing is missing, though no detail is offered on error behavior for unknown ids.

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 ('Deletes a debt record from the Beyond Payday account') and immediately disambiguates from the nearest siblings: it is not a settlement, and update_debt with enabled:false is the non-deleting alternative. An agent can separate this from update_debt and restore_deleted without opening any schema.

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?

Names three concrete routing conditions: use beyondpayday_update_debt with enabled:false to hide a debt, use beyondpayday_restore_deleted to undo, and use beyondpayday_list_debts to obtain the id. The when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-something-else decision is fully spelled out.

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