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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them by stating the behavioral outcome (the address starts receiving that category again) and a consent-based guardrail, though it says nothing about permissions or the difference in blast radius between tenant-scoped and account-wide removal.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the action and its effect come first, the usage restriction second. Nothing redundant with the title or schema is restated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the operation's intent and effect. The one remaining ambiguity is that all four parameters are optional with no stated requirement that an identifier (id or email) must be supplied, which the description could have clarified.

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 the schema already documents id, email, tenant and category in detail, including the 'omit to remove every category' semantics. The description only restates 'by id or email address', adding no format or precedence guidance (e.g. which wins when both are supplied). 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?

States a specific verb (Remove) and resource (category opt-out) and explains the resulting effect: the address receives that category again. It reads clearly against the closest sibling list_category_opt_outs, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from remove_suppression, which an agent could plausibly confuse with per-category opt-outs.

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 an explicit gating condition - 'Use only when the reader has asked to re-subscribe' - which is exactly the kind of when-to-use guidance that prevents unwanted calls. It does not name a preferred alternative tool for the opposite case (adding an opt-out), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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