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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, openWorld=true and idempotent=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: a two-step email confirmation gate ('Nothing changes without that confirmation'), the downstream effect (all published profiles go offline within a few minutes plus a company email), and a human-review exception. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the mechanism and its consequences in a logical order. Five sentences, all carrying real information, though the 'ask the user for it' aside and the repetition of the domain constraint are marginally redundant with the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the entire lifecycle an agent needs: inputs, the confirmation handshake, the resulting offline timing, the notification email, and the human-review edge case. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 67% and the two functional parameters (domain, work_email) are already documented in the schema, including the 'exactly that domain' constraint. The description reinforces those meanings but adds no new syntax or format guidance, and schema_version remains undocumented in both places. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb+resource+scope: 'Remove a company from the Agent Company Index on behalf of that company.' An agent can distinguish this from request_listing, get_listing_status, and approve_listing without opening any sibling schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context (act on the company's behalf, ask the user for domain and work email on exactly that domain) and flags a conditional branch (profiles under an agreement with ACI's owner are checked by a person first). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like request_listing or approve_listing, so it stops short of 5.

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