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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses real state semantics: closing halts seller responses, and the found flag branches the outcome into 'fulfilled' versus merely 'closed'. It does not address reversibility or whether the ad record is retained, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action and its effect front-loaded and the parameter branch second. Every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter mutation with an idempotency annotation and no output schema, the description covers the action, its effect, and both flag branches. It leaves out only secondary details such as whether the change can be undone.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both params and a 3 would be the baseline. The description earns above baseline by explaining the consequence of found=true ('marks it fulfilled') and the default branch ('otherwise it is simply closed'), adding outcome meaning the schema does not carry.

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 (close) and resource (wanted ad) with an explicit ownership scope ('one of the user's own'), which cleanly separates it from posting tools like post_want and browsing tools like my_wants/search_wants. An agent knows exactly what this tool operates on without opening the schema.

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 rationale 'so sellers stop responding' implies when to reach for it (retiring an active ad), but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative among the siblings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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