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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description reveals important behavior: records are permanently purged after 30 days, access is admin-only, responses contain an exact pagination.total, and has_more controls termination. This is meaningful behavioral context that an agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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 compact and information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds access, retention, search, and pagination guidance without filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description specifies pagination response behavior (`pagination.total`, `has_more`) and covers scope, auth, retention, search, and limits. The only lightly documented parameter is `entity_type`, but the enum and record type list make it sufficiently usable.

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 only 50%, but the description compensates by explaining the purpose of `search`, the max `limit` of 500, and how to use `offset` with pagination. It does not explicitly describe the `entity_type` parameter, though the enum values together with the listed record types make the meaning reasonably clear.

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 action and resource—'List soft-deleted records currently in the recycle bin'—and enumerates the exact record types covered: leads, deals, contacts, tasks, projects. It clearly distinguishes this tool from ordinary get/list tools because it specifically covers soft-deleted records in the recycle bin.

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 gives clear operational context: Admin-only access, use search for a specific deleted record rather than paging through the whole bin, and page with offset until has_more is false. It does not explicitly mention the restore siblings as the natural follow-up, but the internal usage guidance is solid.

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