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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world, and the description goes well beyond them: it scopes the blast radius ('only hides that company for this rep', 'never changes the firm profile', 'does not move any other company') and discloses a non-obvious branch — an unclear name yields a say_now requesting the website rather than an error. With no output schema, that return-behavior detail is exactly the missing context.

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 action and the strongest disambiguation ('not a fit'), then alternatives, then a closing response directive. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the final formatting instruction ('Say what was passed in one line') is mildly procedural but still earns a slot as output guidance absent an output schema.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive hide action with no output schema, the description supplies scope, side-effect boundaries, the inverse operation, and what happens on ambiguous input — everything needed to invoke it correctly and explain the result to a rep.

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%, so both parameters (company, website) are already documented as fully as the schema allows, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only lightly touches parameter meaning — the website is implied as a conditional follow-up when a name is unclear — but adds no syntax, format, or disambiguation rules for the company string.

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 verb and resource — 'Hides one company from the rep's suggestions' — with a concrete example ('pass on Acme'). It also explicitly separates itself from the nearest confusable concept ('it is not "not a fit"') and from its sibling restore_company, so an agent can distinguish it without opening 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 an explicit when (use Pass rather than 'not a fit'), names the inverse tool restore_company and its condition ('brings it back'), and specifies the fallback path when the name is unclear (a say_now asking for the website). That is when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative all in one place.

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