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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb — no note on what reopening affects (existing appointments/bookings) or error behavior — which is acceptable but unenriched.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the id-source parenthetical appended. Nothing extraneous.

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 low-complexity, 2-required-param tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose and the non-obvious id source. The only gap is locationId, whose meaning is left entirely to the schema.

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 explains where closureId comes from (get_location_setup's upcomingClosures), adding real value for one of the two params, but says nothing about locationId's meaning or required format.

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 (reopen) and resource (a closure, addressed by id), which is clear enough for an agent to act. It also points to a related sibling (get_location_setup) for the id source, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the inverse tool add_closed_dates.

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 clear operational context: the closure is reopened by id and those ids come from get_location_setup's upcomingClosures. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. add_closed_dates for the inverse), so it stops short of a 5.

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