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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses tenant scoping, that the audit is durable, and the critical caveat that only the derived index is cleared while raw media is not deleted by Temsor. Permissions and rate/retention limits are not covered.

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 scope statement and the index/media caveat are front-loaded and valuable, but trailing fragments like 'Number→flow managed SaaS; own PBX optional. No DID sales.' are cryptic, only loosely relevant to an audit listing, and dilute the core message.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-style audit tool with no output schema, the description supplies origin (E.3), scope, returned dimensions, and deletion caveats. Return field detail is shallow, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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% and the single limit parameter is fully documented including its default, so the schema does the work; the description only echoes 'limit=20' in the URL example. Baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 and resource ('List recent KVKK forget actions') plus the returned fields (who/what/when + tenant scope), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling pbx_redact that performs the redaction.

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?

Ties itself to the durable audit trail produced by POST /v1/pbx/redact (E.3) and warns 'not a legal deletion SLA', giving clear context for when the tool applies, though it names no explicit alternatives or prerequisites.

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