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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive inspection tool. The description adds useful behavioral detail by explaining that the token reflects a current snapshot rather than human assent or reservation, and by listing what does and does not block removal.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the description stays focused on impact semantics, blockers, and scope exclusions. It is somewhat dense and contains awkward phrasing around the snapshot token, but it does not waste space.

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?

The tool has annotations and an output schema, so safety and return-shape details are already covered. The description fills in important context about blocking conditions and exclusions, though it could more explicitly connect this inspection step to the actual removal workflow.

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 only one parameter and the schema already documents it fully with a description tying it to agents_list or agent_create. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it reports an Agent's permanent deletion impact, retained cleanup identities, and anti-replay identities. It is distinguishable from agent_remove because it describes an inspection/reporting tool rather than the removal action itself, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tools.

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 context about what blocks removal and what is outside the action's scope, but it does not explicitly say when to call this tool versus agent_remove or agent_removal_status. Usage is therefore implied rather than directly stated.

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