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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety framing is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: suppressing a domain affects matching leads, which clarifies that this is a broader mutation than a nuance-free allowlist insert and is consistent with destructiveHint=false (marked, not deleted). Reversibility and duplicate handling remain undisclosed.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, then constraints, then the side effect. No filler; it could only be improved by naming the 'reason' field rather than adding length.

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 mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential input format and the observable effect on leads. Gaps are secondary: the meaning of 'reason', behavior on duplicates, and whether suppression is reversible.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It compensates well for 'values' by giving the accepted syntax and the 10,000 batch cap, but the 'reason' parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of two parameters completely unexplained.

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 ('Suppress') and resource ('addresses or whole domains'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool acts on. There is no near-duplicate among the siblings (add_domain, import_leads, etc.), so no explicit differentiation is required, but no routing language is provided either.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description tells you what input format to use (emails or '@acme.com' domains) and the batch cap, which hints this is the suppression entry point. It never says when to prefer this over related tools, whether suppress/unsuppress alternatives exist, or what preconditions apply.

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