List Deleted Entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds real value with 'soft-deleted' and 'recently', signalling a retention window and restorability, but never says how far back 'recently' reaches, whether an empty result means retention expired, or how pagination behaves.

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; the scoping qualifier arrives before anything else. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 deliberately concise: an output schema exists so return shape needs no explanation, and the annotations fully cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, so the description's only real obligations are purpose and usage. It meets them with a single precise sentence, and adding parameter detail would be nice-to-have rather than required to call the tool correctly.

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 0% for all three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does nothing — limit/offset defaults (50/0) and the use_test_db flag are undocumented anywhere. An agent cannot tell from text whether limit caps the page size for this tool specifically or what use_test_db changes.

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?

Specific verb+resource with a meaningful qualifier: 'recently soft-deleted entries that can be restored' tells an agent this is the trash/restore-candidate listing, not a permanent-deletion log. It does not distinguish itself from the team-scoped sibling team_list_deleted_entries or from list_backups, so 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 phrase 'can be restored' implicitly frames the workflow (list here, then use restore_entry/team_restore_entry), but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g., list_backups vs deleted entries) is named. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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