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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the important behavioral constraint of a 30-day retention window and the restorability condition, which is valuable context beyond the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and scope, then appends the restore linkage. Every clause earns its place with no wasted words.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the resource, the time scope, and the recovery path, giving an agent everything needed to decide to call it and what to do next.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 flows deleted in the last 30 days') and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'neuron_list_flows' by scoping to deleted items. The reference to 'neuron_restore_deleted_flow' further clarifies the purpose of finding restorable flows.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use this tool: to find flows that were deleted within the last 30 days and can still be restored. It names the complementary restore tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use it versus the active-flows list tool.

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