Recently deleted items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description then adds real substance beyond them — a 30-day retention window, newest-first ordering, the presence of a deleter identity and a purge date per record, and the scope boundary. It stops short of saying whether the list is paginated or capped, which matters for a bulk read.

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?

Three sentences, each load-bearing: the first defines the result set and ordering, the second gives the usage trigger and sibling handoff, the third sets the exclusion boundary. The identifying information (30-day window, newest first) is front-loaded, and phrasing like 'the day each goes for good' conveys the purge date compactly.

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?

This is a zero-parameter read with no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does: ordering, deleter attribution, purge timing, and scope. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide to call it or to interpret the result is missing.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is no schema surface for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. The description wisely spends its words on output shape and scope instead of inventing parameter guidance that does not exist.

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 gives a specific verb-resource pair and adds the defining scope: items deleted within the last 30 days, ordered newest first, annotated with deleter and scheduled purge date. It also explicitly carves out what is NOT included (deleted maintenance tasks, places), which lets an agent separate it from list_maintenance and list_locations at a glance.

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?

It names the triggering user intents (wants something back, asks what was removed) and routes to the correct follow-up tool by name: restore_item, with the note that it works by id. The explicit 'only items' exclusion tells the agent when to look elsewhere, so both the when and the when-not are covered.

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