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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds important context beyond that: it marks the document dismissed, hides it from future results, and leaves stored data/artifacts untouched. This clarifies the mutation semantics without contradicting the annotations.

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 focused sentences cover the action, the appropriate usage context, and the key non-destructive distinction. There is no filler, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it does not do, and the persistence of the underlying data. Nothing necessary for correct invocation 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 100%, and the document_id parameter already explains where to obtain the ID. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the schema fully documents the only parameter.

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') with a clearly scoped resource: failed, rejected, or cancelled documents excluded from future list_statements results. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from deletion, which differentiates it from sibling tools that might otherwise seem related.

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?

The description gives an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Use this only when the user asks to clear a terminal failed/rejected/cancelled conversion from their history.' It also warns that this is not a delete, but it does not name an alternative tool for actual deletion, so the guidance is strong but not fully complete.

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