Get deleted shift occurrences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the endpoint and 'Body fields: none,' but does not disclose response shape or pagination behavior. It is consistent with the annotations and adds modest context.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, endpoint, body expectation, and reference link. Every line contributes useful information with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a read-only GET with strong annotations and query-schema pagination details, the endpoint plus reference make it callable. However, there is no output schema and the description does not state the response shape or when to prefer this over the sibling get_shift_occurrences and restore_deleted_shift_occurrences tools. The reference URL compensates somewhat, but the in-description guidance remains thin.

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 schema already documents the query object with pagination guidance, and the description adds the URL template showing groupID and shiftID as path parameters and that no body is needed. However, it does not explain the meaning or format of those IDs, and the path parameters themselves lack descriptive coverage in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource, 'Get deleted shift occurrences,' and includes the exact endpoint. The word 'deleted' helps distinguish it from siblings like get_shift_occurrences and restore_deleted_shift_occurrences, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling get_shift_occurrences or restore_deleted_shift_occurrences. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and endpoint.

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