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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to prove this is a mutation; instead it adds real context the annotations can't express — the topic gets closed, discovery stops proposing the page, and an already-live page 'starts retiring'. It stops short of saying whether a rejection can be undone or what happens to an already-rejected page.

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, zero filler, with the core action and its consequence front-loaded before the alternative is offered.

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 destructive, non-open-world mutation with a fully documented 2-param schema and no output schema, the description covers the key side effects and the main alternative. Reversibility and the reject-vs-retire distinction are the remaining holes.

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% and both parameters are documented there (including that reason is recorded on the page and the gap). The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the 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 (reject) and resource (hosted page) plus the downstream effect on the topic, which is the distinguishing behavior. This lets an agent separate it from sibling mutations like retire-hosted-page or publish-article without opening a schema.

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 a clear use condition ('so discovery will not propose it again') and explicitly names an alternative, request-hosted-page-regeneration, with the tradeoff ('keeps the topic and asks for a new version'). It omits the closest sibling, retire-hosted-page, so the agent gets no guidance on reject vs. retire.

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