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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnly=false) but provide no detail. The description adds critical behavioral context: declining cannot retract information already shared with the other party ('can't pull back what they already received'), and reported publishers are reviewed/repeat offenders removed. This goes beyond annotations and discloses non-obvious side effects, making the tool's behavior transparent.

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 concise, with the primary action front-loaded and supporting details (consequence, reporting guidance) in the following sentences. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or redundancy. The structure is efficient and well-organized.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, the permanent effect (won't surface again), the non-revocation of shared info, and the reporting workflow. It does not need to describe return values (no output schema). The completeness is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameters. It does explain the 'reason' enum values and their intended usage ('Use reason='report_spam' or 'report_inappropriate' when the match looks like an abuse attempt'). However, it does not mention the 'note' parameter (optional, maxLength 500) or provide any additional meaning for match_id beyond its obvious purpose. Thus, it partially compensates but leaves one parameter unexplained.

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 explicitly states the tool's action with a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a match as not interested, OR report it as spam / inappropriate.' It also clarifies the effect ('Once declined, the platform won't surface this pair again'), distinguishing it from merely marking as seen. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like mark_matches_seen.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the reporting reasons ('Use reason='report_spam' or 'report_inappropriate' when the match looks like an abuse attempt') and explains the consequence of reporting. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when NOT to use this tool, though no direct alternative exists for this action. Thus, it has clear context but lacks active exclusions.

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