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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: that the action reaches other people (external side effect), that the user must confirm before each call, and that the user's Cotlet API key with app access is required. That external-effect and auth disclosure is genuine added value on top of the annotations. It does not describe what happens to the lead record or how the ban can be reversed, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the first two sentences say essentially the same thing ('Ban a lead from touring...' versus 'Bans one lead from touring... and stores the reason'), so a sentence does not fully earn its place. The remaining sentences are tight and useful.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context an agent needs: the effect, the reason requirement, the external reach, the confirmation requirement, and the auth dependency. The main omission is any note on reversibility or permission requirements specific to banning a lead.

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 100%, so both lead_id and reason are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that a reason is required and that the lead identifier is involved, but adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Ban a lead from touring your properties') and adds the scope that it stores a reason. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling actions like rently_assign_lead or rently_set_self_touring. It loses a point only because the second sentence largely restates the first rather than further distinguishing it from siblings.

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 description gives operational guidance ('By default you confirm each call; you can switch that off for this tool' and 'confirm with the user before each call'), which tells the agent how the call behaves. However, it never says when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions or exclusions relative to the other rently lead-management tools.

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