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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the useful status model (pending while running, completed when every row of the address is gone) and defines the completion condition. It omits other possible states (e.g. failed/not-found) and any behavior for an unknown or expired id.

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?

A single compact sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and immediately qualifying it with the originating call and the status lifecycle. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 and a 0%-documented parameter, the description carries most of the burden; it explains the status progression but not what the response contains, how to detect a finished erasure programmatically, or what happens for an invalid id. Adequate to call the tool, but not complete for interpreting results.

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 0%, so the single parameter contact_erasure_id is documented nowhere structurally; the description only implicitly indicates it is the identifier returned by erase_email. It adds that much meaning but does not state the id format or whether it is the same id returned by the erase call.

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 (Read) and resource (an erasure) and ties it directly to the originating sibling call, erase_email. An agent can distinguish it from erase_email (which starts the erasure) without opening either 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?

The phrase 'started with erase_email' establishes the lifecycle context in which this tool is used, implying it is a polling call made after an erasure is initiated. It stops short of an explicit 'call this repeatedly until completed' instruction or any exclusion, so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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