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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral content beyond that: the returned fields (tipo, id, nombre, deletion time) and the notable exclusion that merged entities never appear because they were absorbed, not deleted.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the item shape, then the merged-entity caveat and scope note. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the item content and field list overlap slightly.

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 carries return-value burden and does so: it names the fields each item returns, the allowed tipo values, and the workspace scoping. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 all three params are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the workspace_id scope behavior ('mira todos a la vez') already in the schema and adds no new syntax or format detail for tipo or limit.

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+resource ('lo que está en la papelera') and enumerates the five item types it covers (documentos, canvases, recaps, clips, entidades del Atlas). It also names the sibling restore_from_trash, making it unmistakable next to the many delete_* tools in the catalog.

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 ties the tool to recovery by naming restore_from_trash as the follow-up action and clarifies scope ('Sin workspace_id mira todos a la vez'). It gives clear context for use but stops short of stating when NOT to use it or contrasting it with a hypothetical 'active items' sibling.

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