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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output content but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or how it handles sites not in the registry. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 no wasted words; the first sentence is information-dense but efficiently lists all returned fields. The scope statement ('For any of the 950+ sites') is front-loaded, aiding quick comprehension. Slightly long but well-structured.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates the expected return fields (method, opt-out URL, privacy email, parent company, sibling sites, guide link), giving an agent a clear picture of the result. It omits error handling and edge cases, but for a simple read tool this is a minor gap.

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 description that already explains the domain/URL format and provides examples. The description's line 'Accepts a domain or a URL' duplicates the schema without adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('removal route'), and enumerates the exact data returned (removal method, opt-out URL, privacy email, parent company, sibling sites, guide link). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_opt_out_instructions or list_opt_out_guides, which focus on different aspects.

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?

Provides useful context by stating it covers the 950+ sites in the takedown registry, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or give conditions for when to choose this over alternatives. The usage context is clear, but the absence of exclusions or alternative references leaves selection to inference.

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