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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive profile, and the description adds genuinely new context: the required 'repo' scope and the automatic purge that occurs once restorable_until passes, which is decision-relevant for an agent. The 'Read-only' sentence merely restates readOnlyHint=true, so it is not a full 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?

Front-loaded with the verb, resource, and scope in the first clause, and the trailing return-shape block is worth its space given no output schema exists. Minor redundancy: 'Each has its id, full_name and restorable_until' is repeated almost verbatim by the later Returns object.

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 supplies the return shape (total_count plus per-repo fields) and the expiry semantics an agent needs to act on results. Scope, permissions, and the single optional parameter are all covered, leaving nothing material missing for a one-parameter read 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the default behavior when `all` is omitted (personal plus owned-org repos), which the schema's one-line property description does not state. The site-admin restriction itself is duplicated from the 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 deleted repositories') plus the exact scope: personal repos and those of organizations you own, with a site-admin escalation path. An agent can distinguish this from merjax_search_repos, merjax_repo_health, or merjax_restore_repo without opening 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?

Clearly frames the use case as finding repos that are candidates to restore or purge, and qualifies when the `all` escalation applies (site admins only). It stops short of explicitly naming merjax_restore_repo and merjax_purge_repo as the follow-up actions, leaving that routing to inference.

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