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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'block it from future recommendations' is consistent with these. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as reversibility or impact on the current recommendation list, so it does not exceed what the annotations convey.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys both the immediate action and the long-term effect without any redundant words. It is well-structured for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 tool with one parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only missing context is explicit information about reversibility or how this relates to restore/dismiss, but the core calling behavior is fully clear.

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 schema already covers 100% of the single parameter recommendation_id with a clear description ('Recommendation id'), so the description adds no new semantic meaning. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Dismiss a recommended company') and the outcome ('block it from future recommendations'), making the tool's purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like signals.recommendations.dismiss, relying on the word 'block' to imply the difference.

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?

The description implies usage when a user wants to permanently remove a company from future recommendations, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, so the agent must infer the boundary between this and similar dismiss/restore tools.

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