list_deleted_documents

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a trash listing, and the description adds the useful behavioral fact that these entries are recoverable rather than permanently gone. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether the list is scoped to a single company by default, which the annotations do not cover.

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?

A single short sentence with the scope (trash) front-loaded and the recovery hint trailing. There is no filler and nothing to trim.

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 two-parameter read-only listing with no output schema, the description conveys the essential scope and the recovery destination. The remaining gaps (pagination, ordering, default kind behavior) are minor for a tool of this complexity, though the default of 'issued' still has to be inferred from the schema.

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 coverage is 50%: company_id is documented in the schema with its default-resolution rule, while the kind enum has no schema description. The description partially compensates by mapping 'emessi o ricevuti' onto the two enum values, but it does not clarify the default of 'issued' or what each kind boundary means.

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 names the resource precisely ('Documenti emessi o ricevuti nel cestino'), making clear this is a trash-scoped listing of both issued and received document types, which distinguishes it from the sibling list_issued_documents and list_received_documents. The listing verb itself is only implied by the tool name rather than stated in the description.

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?

'recuperabili con recover_document' gives the agent a clear follow-up path once an item is found, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when to choose this over list_issued_documents/list_received_documents or list_archive_documents, nor any prerequisites, so the selection logic is only implied.

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