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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers real value beyond structured fields: it discloses tenant scoping, that the derived index is cleared while raw media is NOT deleted, and that this is not a legal deletion SLA. It does not state read-only status, pagination, or retention limits, but the scope and non-deletion caveats are meaningfully richer than 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 first sentence is well front-loaded and earns its place, but the second paragraph degrades into cryptic domain shorthand fragments ("Number→flow managed SaaS; own PBX optional. No DID sales.") whose relevance to invoking this tool is unclear. The raw request line partly duplicates the schema, so the text is not maximally tight.

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 no annotations, the description does describe the returned content (who/what/when plus tenant scope) and the important non-deletion caveat, which is enough to call a simple filtered-list tool correctly. It omits pagination behavior for larger result sets, but is otherwise complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

There is a single optional limit parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents its meaning and range. The description only echoes limit=20 in the request line, adding no semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("List recent erasure actions — who/what/when + tenant scope") and explicitly ties it to its natural sibling by describing it as the durable audit of POST /v1/pbx/redact. An agent can distinguish it from pbx_redact (which performs 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?

Usage is implied — this is the read-side audit counterpart to pbx_redact — and there is a partial when-not caveat ("not a legal deletion SLA"). However, there is no explicit statement of when to call it versus checking pbx_redact's result or any prerequisite/auth guidance, leaving the selection logic to inference.

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