Check Retention Expired

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the decision basis (TTL policy) and says nothing about boundary behavior such as how an expired result is determined or how the null max-retention case is treated — mild added value against a low bar.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. It is arguably too terse given the surrounding gaps, but there is no wasted prose.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify the return value and the significance of the null retention case, and it does neither. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers most inputs, so the description is adequate but leaves an agent guessing about the result shape.

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 67%: accessedAt and maxRetentionMs are described in the schema, but the accessType enum (ephemeral/persistent) has no description anywhere. The description contributes no parameter-level meaning and does not compensate for the undocumented enum, though it does not mislead either.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (data retention expiry) and names the decision basis (TTL policy), so the agent can tell what the tool computes. It does not differentiate itself from the cluster of adjacent checkers like validate_temporal_rights or is_evidence_fresh, which is why it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions relative to the many sibling check_* tools. The usage is only implied by the tool name; nothing tells the agent when retention checking is the right call versus a temporal-rights or freshness check.

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