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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, readOnly=false, so the description need not restate safety; it adds real value by clarifying this is free and immediate and that a removed lead keeps its last reading and history, meaning removal stops future enrichment rather than deleting data. It does not say whether re-enrollment restores enrichment or what happens if a job is in flight.

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 sentences with the core action front-loaded; the 'Free and immediate' clause is terse but carries cost/latency information rather than being filler.

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?

Mostly sufficient for a one-parameter mutation with strong annotations, but gaps remain around reversibility, re-enrollment behavior, and any cap on how many result_ids can be passed.

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% and the sole parameter result_ids is documented in the schema itself; the description adds nothing about batching limits or ID validation, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (remove) plus resource (leads from automatic enrichment); it reads as the inverse of enroll_leads and is clearly distinct from enrich_leads and search_leads.

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?

Implies when to use it — when automatic enrichment is unwanted and plan room is needed — but never names the inverse enroll_leads as the alternative, and gives no when-not-to-use conditions such as removing mid-job.

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