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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds the non-obvious behavior that existing appointments are NOT cancelled and that the response counts them for follow-up. That is exactly the consequence an agent needs before calling a mutation, and it goes beyond what the structured fields convey.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the side-effect warning. No filler or redundancy.

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 3-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key effect (appointments preserved, counted in response) and timezone handling. The remaining gap is that the 'reason' parameter and any permission requirements are unaddressed, but nothing critical to calling it correctly 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 0% (only the nested date item format is annotated), and the description adds no parameter detail: no format for dates, no meaning for locationId, and the optional 'reason' parameter is never mentioned at all. With 3 parameters and essentially no schema documentation, the description fails to compensate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Close the whole location on specific dates', with scope qualifiers (whole location, local timezone). It is clearly distinguishable in practice from the inverse sibling remove_closure and from appointment-level tools, but it never names an alternative to route against.

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?

Gives concrete use contexts ('holidays, shutdowns') that tell an agent when this applies, and the local-timezone note constrains interpretation. It stops short of any when-not condition or explicit pointer to remove_closure for undoing a closure.

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