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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the important lasting effect (removal from future recommendations), which is genuine value beyond structured fields. It omits whether the block is reversible (a recommendations.restore sibling exists) and whether dismissal and blocking are one atomic action.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that states the primary action first and the side effect second, with no filler.

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 and annotations cover return values and safety profile, and the single parameter is fully documented, so the description only needs to add routing context. Its remaining gap is the unstated contrast with recommendations.dismiss/restore.

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% for the single recommendation_id parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance (e.g., where to obtain the id), so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'Dismiss a recommended company and block it from future recommendations' tells an agent exactly what effect the call has. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling recommendations.dismiss, and the word 'dismiss' in the description actively blurs that boundary.

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?

No statement of when to prefer this over recommendations.dismiss, recommendations.feedback, or recommendations.restore. The only implicit cue is 'block it from future recommendations', which the agent must infer as the differentiator.

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