get_deletions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses billing cost ($8 per 1,000 fetched dataset rows, including unflagged rows) and status coverage, but omits auth requirements, rate limits, and return format.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the purpose is front-loaded and the billing nuance is a crucial second sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is missing too much: parameter semantics, return value structure, auth, and usage alternatives are all absent. Only billing and status scope are covered.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'dataset rows' loosely aligning with maxItems but does not explain highRank or platforms, nor the enum choices for platforms.

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 (Fetch) and resource (deletion-watch flags), and adds scope detail ('including provisional and returned statuses'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools get_china_news and get_hot_lists, but the resource is self-evidently different.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites or exclusions stated. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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