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

Annotations already cover the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact: 'Hiding sends nothing to that person,' i.e. no notification is emitted. It does not mention reversibility limits or side effects on the match list beyond the toggle.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, with the restore case attached to the same clause and the no-notification caveat last. No 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations plus idempotency_key description cover the safe-retry story. What remains thin is the match_id parameter's origin and the relationship to sibling match-listing tools, but nothing essential to invoking the tool 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 description coverage is only 33% – match_id and dismissed are undocumented in the schema. The description compensates for dismissed by spelling out the true/false semantics, which is the critical bit, but says nothing about match_id beyond what its UUID format implies. Partial compensation warrants 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 names a specific action on a specific resource: hiding a suggested person or restoring them via dismissed=false. An agent can immediately tell this is a toggle on an existing match. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like ack_address_book_matches or block_contact, which keeps it from 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 through 'a suggested person the human does not want to see,' which suggests when hiding is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-not or pointer to alternatives such as ack_address_book_matches for matching and block_contact for blocking. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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