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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, non-destructive, closed-world read. The description still adds real value beyond that: it discloses the cross-plane aggregation model, that each item carries a permanent-deletion timestamp, the 'access: restorable or locked' semantics, what restoresWithThisTool=false implies, and the 'held' caveat about items kept past the Trash window. Only pagination/volume behavior is undisclosed.

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 dense sentence with the primary action front-loaded, followed by output semantics. It is efficient but noticeably jargon-dense ('across every plane', 'held counts kept items past the Trash window'), which costs a little readability against its compactness.

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, the description takes on return-value explanation and does so for the key fields (access, restoresWithThisTool, held). For a read-only list tool with fully documented parameters, the only gaps are ordering, result volume, and pagination behavior.

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% with two optional scoping parameters (person, project), so the schema fully documents them. The description adds nothing about acting-as a linked person or workspace scoping, meaning it neither compensates nor detracts — 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 description names a specific verb and resource ('List what the member deleted that their Trash still keeps') and adds scope ('across every plane'), which clearly separates it from connections_storage_list_files and the restore tools. It never names a sibling tool outright, so differentiation is implied through the 'restoresWithThisTool / sourcePlane' language rather than explicit routing.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the survey step before calling a restore, and that items marked 'locked' must be restored elsewhere. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative (e.g., connections_storage_restore_from_trash), so the agent must infer the workflow.

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