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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that without `aplicar:true` the tool is a dry run returning only a count, that it writes the reason onto the contact, and the precise removal criteria. It omits permission requirements and reversibility, but the destructive side effects and safe default are clearly explained.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: core criteria, the exception, the side effect, and the dry-run default. The removal criteria are front-loaded. Slightly long but no wasted text.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers criteria, side effects, and dry-run behavior adequately. Only permission/prerequisite details are absent, which 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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the dry-run semantics of `aplicar` and the account-wide scope when `list_id` is omitted, but adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 action (removing contacts from circulation) on a specific resource (bounced subscribers) and defines the exact inclusion criteria (permanent bounce or 3 consecutive temporary bounces). An agent can understand the tool's behavior without opening the schema. No sibling performs this action, so differentiation is not needed.

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?

It clearly states when contacts qualify (permanent bounce, or 3 consecutive temporary bounces with no engagement) and, importantly, when they do NOT (a single temporary bounce never removes anyone). No alternative tool is named, but none of the siblings competes for this task, so the routing guidance is effectively complete.

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