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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds valuable context beyond them: 30-day permanent deletion, newest-first ordering, and who/when metadata. It does not describe pagination or result-size limits, but the added retention and permission details are substantive.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by retention and role requirements.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is returned, ordering, retention, and access requirements. It could mention pagination or result limits, but those omissions are minor here.

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 100%, so the single projectId parameter is already documented by the schema. The description does not add any further meaning or syntax for that optional filter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: list the workspace's deleted tasks (the Trash). It adds ordering, metadata, retention, and access context, making it clearly distinct from sibling list tools like list_tasks and list_tasks_by_project.

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 states the required roles (Administrator or ProjectManager), which gives clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly route the agent to related alternatives such as restore_task or purge_task when acting on trashed items.

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