erasure_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it explicitly states this is read-only and content-free with no PII. It also clarifies that it shows deliberate erasures as tombstones, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond a generic report name.

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 description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the key output structure and audience context, and ends with the privacy-relevant content-free guarantee. Every clause earns its place.

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 parameterless report tool, the description is fairly complete: it names the output fields, states the read-only nature, and clarifies there is no PII. It could slightly improve by noting any relationship to sibling audit/report tools, but given the simple interface, an agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter usage. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output rather than any input semantics.

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 clearly identifies the tool as an audit view of deliberate erasures, listing the specific output items: total tombstones and each {memory_id, ts, request_id}. It is understandable on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like erasure_audit or erasure_certificate.

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 implies the intended use case by stating it is 'the log a DPO/auditor asks for', giving a clear contextual audience. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or name an alternative tool for different erasure-related queries.

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