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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses permanence ('forever') and an auth trait ('No key needed'), but omits whether the opt-out is reversible, whether it applies domain-wide or per-agent, and what a successful call returns.

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 waste, and the core action plus its permanence are front-loaded. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, permanence, and auth. However, the scope of the opt-out (per-domain vs per-agent, platform-wide effect) and error behavior remain unspecified, leaving real gaps given no annotations to fall back on.

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 both parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description mildly clarifies intent by saying 'a domain' rather than 'your domain' (the schema's wording), but adds no format or syntax detail beyond that.

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: opt a domain out of Haven outreach, with the added scope qualifier 'forever'. No sibling tool overlaps this function, so no explicit differentiation is needed, though it does not spell out the relationship to related tools like block_agent or unsubscribe_updates.

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 implies when it applies ('any Haven outreach') but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and names no alternative. An agent gets no help deciding between this and adjacent tools such as block_agent or unsubscribe_updates.

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