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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a 7-day retention window, newest-first ordering, and that each item carries a restorability deadline. It does not describe pagination or result size limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; scope, ordering, and the expiry field all land in one pass. Nothing repeats the title or the annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must hint at the return shape, which it does via 'newest first' and 'when each stops being restorable'. Minor gap: it never mentions what identifying fields each entry has (name/id), which an agent needs to chain into restore_bubble.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description instead spends its words on output semantics rather than wasting space on nonexistent inputs.

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+resource (list bubbles) narrowed by a clear scope qualifier ('deleted in the last 7 days'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_bubbles for active items. It also discloses ordering and an extra field, though it never names the sibling alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the trash-view counterpart to list_bubbles and the natural precursor to restore_bubble or delete_bubble, but the description never says so. An agent must infer the when-to-use from the term 'deleted' alone.

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