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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds substantial value beyond them: instant application, no quota consumption, reversible via undo_radar_match (which also clears the ranking signal), the ranking-signal equivalence to a 'seen' match, and the 'not_found' outcome for a match not owned by the user.

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 action, then adds reversibility and the ranking-signal nuance. The 'seen' sentence is slightly tangential but earns its place by clarifying the ranking model; overall tight with little waste.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be detailed, and the description still notes the 'not_found' case. With annotations covering safety/idempotency and the description covering effects, reversibility, and quota behavior, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

The single match_id parameter is documented in the schema itself ('as returned by get_radar_matches'), so the description adds nothing about parameter syntax or format beyond that. With one parameter and schema-level coverage, a 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Skip a radar match') and explains the effect precisely (removes from list, teaches ranking lower). It names undo_radar_match as the inverse, but does not explicitly distinguish skip from the sibling delete_radar_match or archive_radar_match, so an agent must still infer which of the three status-changing tools to pick.

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 condition ('a match the user is not interested in') and frames the reversible undo path plus the 'seen' scrolled-past scenario. What's missing is an explicit when-not / alternative rule versus delete and archive siblings.

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