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

Goes well past the annotations: irreversible, no quota consumed, the vacancy will not reappear in future scans, and a derived vacancy analysis is deliberately NOT deleted. It also documents the 'not_archived' and 'not_found' failure modes, which annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers scope, irreversibility, side effects, and error codes with no filler. It is dense and slightly long, but essentially every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description still covers return/error semantics, side effects on related analyses, and the web-only alternative — all the context an agent needs for a destructive, non-idempotent operation. Nothing material is missing.

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?

With a single parameter and 0% reported coverage, the description compensates by specifying the ID must reference an archived/skipped match and showing where to obtain it (get_radar_matches). The inline schema description reinforces but does not exceed this, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 (permanently delete) plus resource (radar match) and scope (Skipped pile — status skipped or archived). This cleanly separates it from archive_radar_match, skip_radar_match, and undo_radar_match without needing to open any 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?

Explains exactly which matches qualify (skipped/archived), points to get_radar_matches(status="archived") as the way to locate them, and explicitly excludes the bulk-clear case as web-only. The when-to-use and when-not-to-use boundaries are both present.

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