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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior: it marks the document dismissed and leaves stored data/artifacts untouched, and explicitly states it is not a delete. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and effect, followed by a clear usage condition and a non-delete clarification. Every word serves a purpose; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, and side effects. It does not mention error cases or prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), but given the low complexity, this is a minor gap. The output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values, making it largely complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly explain the document_id parameter, but the context (the tool targets a specific failed/rejected/cancelled document) and the parameter name make its meaning clear. However, no format, validation, or uniqueness details are given. With a single obvious parameter, the description adds marginal value, earning a 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Hide') and resource ('failed, rejected, or cancelled document') and clearly states the effect ('from future list_statements results'). It also distinguishes itself from a delete operation, making its purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from siblings like list_statements and convert_statement.

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?

Provides an explicit usage condition: 'Use this only when the user asks to clear a terminal failed/rejected/cancelled conversion from their history.' It also clarifies what the tool is not (a delete). It does not name an alternative tool but the 'only when' constraint gives clear scoping, so it earns a 4.

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