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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses cost ('Free'), turnaround (72h SLA), the verification gate (operator verifies domain control), and post-execution state (tombstoned, never re-ingested). It omits whether the request itself is reversible/cancellable and what the requester sees on failure.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with cost and the core action, then SLA and durability guarantees. No filler; every clause conveys a distinct operational fact.

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?

The lifecycle story (request → verify → tombstone) is complete enough to justify calling, but for a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description says nothing about the response (ticket id, confirmation channel) or how the four inputs are expected to be formed.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and does almost nothing: only 'a record you control' loosely gestures at id and requester. The formats for id (aix_ prefix), contact, and the purpose of reason are left entirely to the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Request delisting of a record' plus the outcome ('tombstoned — never re-ingested'). The action is unambiguous and no sibling in the list competes with removal/delisting semantics, though the description never says so explicitly.

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 'a record you control' plus the domain-control verification sentence implicitly conveys the precondition for using this tool. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no mention of what to do if verification fails or if the record is not yours, but for an action with no close alternative the implied usage is adequate.

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