retention

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so well. It discloses that the operation is read-only unless apply=True, that apply=True causes hard-deletion, that each erasure leaves a signed tombstone for auditability, and that basis and request_id are recorded. It also specifies the returned keys so the dry-run behavior is fully transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and behavior, and the first paragraph is dense but efficient. The second paragraph adds useful audit context but includes an editorializing explanation about a prior surface gap, which is background rather than invocation guidance.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it explains the default dry-run, the destructive path, the audit trail, the return shape, and the role of each parameter. An agent has enough context to invoke it safely and interpret results.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining every parameter: max_age_days as the age threshold, apply as the enforcement switch, pii_only as the PII filter, and basis/request_id as audit metadata recorded with each erasure. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 operation: find active records older than max_age_days and, when apply=True, hard-delete them under a storage-limitation/GDPR enforcement framing. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling recall, audit, and erasure tools by naming the enforcement mechanism and the auditable tombstone behavior.

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 operational guidance: dry-run by default, review the returned object, then enforce with apply=True; pii_only scopes to PII-tagged records. It does not name specific sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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