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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that deletion is permanent and that query tokens are destroyed and cannot be reconstructed, explains that a 404 deliberately conflates 'does not exist' with 'not yours' so the agent must not leak ownership, documents the return payload, auth requirements, and a 100/min rate limit. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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 action and keeps each sentence purposeful (destructiveness, ambiguity handling, 404 semantics, auth/rate limits). The explicit return-value line is somewhat redundant since an output schema exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: safety profile, idempotency implications, failure semantics, prerequisites, and rate limits. No gaps remain.

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 100% and the schema itself already clarifies that query_id is the row id from list_saved_queries, not a list position or user_request. The prose adds only the phrase 'by id', so it does not meaningfully extend the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Delete one of your saved data requests by id') and scopes it to the user's own saved queries, distinguishing it from siblings like list_saved_queries, run_saved_query, and save_user_query. An agent can identify the operation without inspecting the 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?

Gives a concrete precondition for invocation ('when more than one row looks like a match, confirm WHICH one with the user') and describes the recovery path for an accidental deletion (re-run explore_data_catalogue and re-save). It does not explicitly name list_saved_queries as the id source in prose (that lives in the schema), so it falls just short of naming alternatives outright.

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