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

Annotations declare the safety profile (write operation, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds durable-state context ('for good', 'from now on') plus cost ('Free'). It omits whether the skip is reversible or what gets returned, but it goes beyond the annotations meaningfully.

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-loaded with the outcome and the exclusion list, then the accepted parameter forms, then the alternative. Efficient, though the parenthetical '(wrong fit, paid, rejected them)' and slightly fragmented phrasing make it denser than it needs to be.

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 single-parameter, fully-documented mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, when to use the sibling, the persistence of the effect, and the absence of cost. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents 'url, host or key' with examples. The description's 'Takes the target's url, host or key' restates that without adding format or syntax detail, so the 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 action (permanently skipping a target site for listings) with a concrete scope effect: it will be left out of listing_targets and today from now on. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling record_action, so an agent can route correctly without reading either 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions (wrong fit, paid, rejected them) and names the alternative plus its triggering condition: for a site already listed on, use record_action so it is checked. Both the positive and negative cases are covered.

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