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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the crucial nuance that the destruction is soft: the record and its history stay readable and only balances change. It also discloses a required confirmation step, which is behavioral context no annotation conveys.

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?

Three short sentences, all front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact first (soft delete) and no filler. Every sentence carries distinct information: operation, effect, prerequisite.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness. The description covers the mutation semantics and the confirmation requirement well; it only omits edge behavior such as deleting an already-deleted expense or a nonexistent ID.

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 50%: idempotency_key is fully documented in the schema, while expense_id relies on its name and UUID format. The description says nothing about either parameter, so it neither compensates for the gap nor adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Soft-deletes an expense') and immediately qualifies the scope of the deletion, which cleanly separates it from update_expense and get_expense. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs without opening the 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?

The description gives a clear condition for use and a prerequisite ('Needs the person's confirmation first'), plus the consequence of invoking it (balances stop counting it). It never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use case, which keeps it short of a 5.

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