get_customer_data_erasure_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'fetch' implies a read-only operation, but the description adds no further context (e.g., pagination behavior, required scopes, or that it returns a list). It essentially restates the tool 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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and directly states the tool's action. No wasted words.

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 simple listing tool with optional filters (all documented in the schema) and no output schema, the description adequately conveys its purpose. It could slightly enhance completeness by explicitly mentioning 'list' or 'all requests', but it is functionally complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the schema provides sufficient semantics. The description does not mention parameters or add any extra meaning, leading to the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('customer data erasure (GDPR) requests'), making the tool's function clear. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like request_customer_data_erasure and cancel_customer_data_erasure by indicating retrieval only.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for fetching existing requests or that request/cancel tools are for creating/canceling, leaving the usage context implicit.

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