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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds useful context: pagination is bounded and access requires invoice-view permission. It does not explain retention-day semantics or page behavior in depth, but it meaningfully supplements the safety profile.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every clause carries useful information: scope, retention days, and permission requirement. There is no waste.

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?

The description covers scope, permission, and output relevance (retention days), which is appropriate for a simple read tool with rich annotations. However, with no output schema and zero parameter description coverage, the lack of pagination semantics leaves a noticeable gap for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the single input object contains limit and offset with constraints but no descriptions. The description only says 'bounded page' and does not name, explain, or provide semantics for limit/offset, so it does little to compensate for the schema gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: reading a bounded page of trashed invoices, plus the remaining retention days. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as search_invoices or restore_invoice.

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?

It gives a clear context for use (trashed invoices only) and a prerequisite (invoice-view permission). It does not state when to choose this over alternatives like search_invoices or how it relates to restore_invoice, 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.