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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it removes the item, it 'teaches the ranking,' not_this_company drops the entire employer, the action is reversible, and a summary lands in `say`. destructiveHint=false is consistent with 'Can be undone,' so no contradiction.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the dismiss action leads and the not_this_company and undo details follow. The trailing note about `say` is cryptic given `say` isn't a declared parameter, but the overall structure is tight.

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 5-param mutation with no required fields and no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious pieces (not_this_company, reversibility, response summary). It never clarifies how title/job_id/company should be combined, and `say` is undefined, leaving gaps.

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 only 20% (just `reason`), so the description must compensate. It clearly explains not_this_company ('drops the whole employer'), but leaves title/job_id/company and their interplay undocumented, so it only partially fills the gap.

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?

"Dismiss a match and say why" gives a specific verb (dismiss) and resource (match), which reads distinctly from siblings like save_job or best_matches. It doesn't explicitly contrast with adjacent tools (e.g., undo_change), so it stops short of a 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?

Usage is implied by 'dismiss a match and say why,' and 'Can be undone' hints at the undo_change sibling, but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer context.

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