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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses key behaviors: soft delete, recoverable_until (30 days default), purged rows with purged:true that cannot be restored, and independence from read permissions. This significantly enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose, then adds relevant details (recovery, permissions, purged status, return format). Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 explains the return shape '{ rows, next_before }' and the purged flag. It covers access restrictions, recovery window, and a key behavioral nuance (purged rows cannot be restored). For a list operation with good annotations, this is 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 input schema fully documents app_id, collection, limit, and before. The description adds context about the 'next_before' cursor in the return value but doesn't need to explain parameters further. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List a collection's recently deleted rows: the recovery bin.' It identifies a specific verb (list), resource (deleted rows), and scope (a collection), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_rows and restore_row.

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 provides useful usage context: 'Owner or agent only, and deliberately independent of the collection's read permissions.' It also explains the soft-delete behavior and the 30-day recovery window, which helps the agent know when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context implies when to use it over list_rows.

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