check_retention_expired

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, what errors may occur, or what permissions are required. The description is too terse for a check operation.

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 sentence with no waste. It is concise but lacks structure like bullet points or sections. For a simple tool, this is acceptable, but could be more scannable.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the output looks like, how to interpret true/false, or error conditions. A check tool should provide more context.

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 67% (two of three parameters described), but the tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond what is in the schema. The 'accessType' parameter lacks description in both schema and tool description.

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 states the tool checks data retention expiration based on TTL policy, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_aggregate_constraints' by focusing on retention. However, it could be more explicit about what the check returns.

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 guidance on when to use or when not to use this tool. There are no mentions of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. The complex sibling list suggests a need for such guidance, but it is absent.

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