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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the scope limits: only the caller's own deletions, a 30-day window, and most-recent-first ordering. That is genuinely useful disclosure, though the undo step is phrased loosely ('read it with `undo_deletion`') and never says what identifier to pass, which is the one operational detail an agent needs.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then when to call it, then the constraint and the next step. Every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, retention window, ordering, and the follow-up action. The remaining gap is the undocumented `limit` parameter and the missing identifier needed to hand an entry to `undo_deletion`.

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 parameter, `limit`, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, page size, or what happens when more entries exist than are returned. With one undocumented parameter the description should have compensated, and it does not.

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 (list), a specific resource (deletions made through this API), and a scope qualifier (still undoable). It is clearly distinct from the sibling `undo_deletion`, which acts on a single entry.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering situations ('after a delete the user regrets', 'whenever they ask to undo, cancel or restore') and routes to the alternative tool `undo_deletion` with a precondition (the user has confirmed that exact entry). Nothing is left to inference.

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