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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond 'dismiss', but it does not contradict the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, no repetition of the schema, and no unnecessary detail. It is as concise as a description can be while still stating the core action.

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 full schema parameter documentation, output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the one-sentence description is largely sufficient. A pointer distinguishing dismiss from block or restore would strengthen completeness, but that gap is already reflected in the usage guidance score.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both recommendation_id and reason explained in the schema; reason even notes that it sharpens future recommendations. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

The description names a specific verb ('dismiss') and resource ('a recommended company'), clearly indicating what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like signals.recommendations.block or signals.recommendations.restore, so it isn't a full 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use dismiss versus sibling recommendation actions such as block, restore, feedback, or watch. An agent receives no exclusions or alternative conditions, leaving the selection decision to inference from the tool name alone.

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