list_deleted_parties

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by noting that the `since` parameter is mandatory and that the response includes a `restrictedParties` key for partially inaccessible records. This behavior is not implied by annotations alone.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with 'Audit feature', and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence provides essential context without redundancy.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description helpfully mentions the `restrictedParties` key. It covers the main purpose and a notable response detail. However, pagination behavior (e.g., sorting, maximum results) is not described, which would be useful for a list endpoint.

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 only 33% (only `since` has a description). The description reinforces that `since` is required and explains it is an ISO-8601 timestamp. However, it does not add meaning for `page` and `perPage` beyond their schema constraints (defaults and ranges), so the burden of compensating for low schema coverage is only partially met.

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 clearly states it is an 'Audit feature: list parties deleted on or after a given timestamp.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and specific resource ('deleted parties'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_deleted_opportunities' by focusing on parties.

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 explicitly states that the `since` parameter is REQUIRED and that the Capsule API rejects the call without it. It also explains the `restrictedParties` key, which helps the agent understand response behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'filter_parties'.

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