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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful consequence (permanent do-not-contact), but does not say whether suppression is scoped to this owner/account, whether it affects in-flight or scheduled sends, or whether it can be undone.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the consequence immediately after. Nothing to trim.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and the lasting effect. The remaining gaps — scope of suppression and reversibility — are the only things an agent might still need.

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 100% with a single well-documented email parameter (format, pattern, length). The description adds nothing beyond 'an address' — which is the expected baseline when the schema already does the work.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: adding an address to the owner's do-not-contact list, plus the downstream effect. It does not name or distinguish itself from adjacent lead-state tools like soclo_leads_reject or soclo_leads_archive, so the boundary must be inferred.

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 stated effect ('never emailed again') implies when to use it, but there is no explicit when-not, no mention of alternatives (e.g., rejecting or archiving a lead instead of suppressing the address), and no note on whether suppression is reversible.

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