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

Annotations indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the important behavioral detail that the suppression is 'permanent', which implies irreversibility. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies a key side effect, though it could still mention if there is any way to undo it.

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 one short sentence that is front-loaded with the action word 'Skip'. Every word earns its place, and it is highly memorable and scannable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, schema coverage 100%, output schema present, annotations available), the description is mostly complete. It captures the core behavior without needing to explain return values or nested objects. However, it could have mentioned the relationship to defer_recommendation or irreversibility, so it is not perfect.

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?

The schema description covers 100% of the parameter (recommendationId) with a clear explanation of where the ID comes from (get_house_review). The tool description itself does not repeat or add any parameter details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the specific verb 'suppress' with the resource 'House Review recommendation' and adds 'permanently', which clearly states both the action and scope. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'defer_recommendation', which likely implies a temporary action.

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 the word 'Skip' and the phrase 'permanently suppress', but there is no explicit instruction on when to use this tool versus alternatives like defer_recommendation. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer based on context.

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