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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'soft-deleted' context, which clarifies that these items are not permanently deleted and can potentially be restored. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, or whether the response includes metadata like total counts. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List soft-deleted (archived) items') and then specifies the scope. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are already documented. The description covers the core purpose and scope, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention pagination or default behavior, but given the output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description is largely complete.

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 schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds the 'soft-deleted' context and the list of item types, which aligns with the 'types' parameter enum. However, it does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters like page, limit, order, search, or sort_by. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('soft-deleted (archived) items'), and enumerates the item types covered ('clients, reports, media, automations and templates'). It distinguishes itself from the many sibling list_* tools by focusing specifically on archived items, and the title reinforces this. The description is not a tautology and clearly identifies what the tool does.

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?

The description implies usage context: use this tool when you need to list soft-deleted/archived items across the specified types. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., restore_from_archive, get_archive_counts, or the specific list_* tools for non-archived items), but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it. The sibling list includes many list_* tools, and the description's emphasis on 'archived' provides sufficient differentiation.

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