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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Close' implies an irreversible or state-changing mutation, but nothing is said about permissions, reversibility, whether a reason is needed, or what closing actually entails.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to fully inform the caller.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the definition leaves too much unstated. An agent cannot tell what closing does to the question's state or what constraints apply.

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 single parameter postId has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. With low coverage the description should compensate, but it provides no meaning, format, or accepted-value guidance for postId.

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+resource ('Close a question') and adds a distinguishing qualifier ('without a solving reply') that hints at the boundary with the sibling mark_solving. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this versus mark_solving or other question-lifecycle tools. The phrase 'without a solving reply' implies a contrast but never states the condition that should select this tool over alternatives.

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