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

The description discloses substantial behavior beyond annotations: finalTerms ADOPT/EDIT semantics, actualAmount as a legacy adapter, acknowledgement rules, legacy product pricing review, idempotency key reuse constraints, and the security note about untrusted CRM field values. No contradiction with 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?

The description is dense but well-structured: core action first, then finalTerms modes, then constraints and security. Every sentence adds operational value, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with 22 parameters, no output schema, and 5% schema coverage, the description covers the main close flow and finalTerms well but omits correction/reversal-related parameters and does not explain return behavior. It is adequate for standard closes but incomplete for the full parameter surface.

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 only 5%, so the description must compensate. It explains finalTerms, actualAmount, acknowledgements, legacyProductPricingReviewed, expectedUpdatedAt, expectedLifecycleRevision, and idempotencyKey. However, it leaves many parameters undocumented, including correctedTerms, closeEpisodeId, reversalReason, correctionReason, winReasonCode, lossReasonCode, targetStageId, and workspaceId.

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 states a specific verb ('Close') and resource ('an open lead or deal') with a clear outcome scope ('as Won/Lost'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like transition_record_stage and correct_closure by limiting use to closing open records with Won/Lost outcomes.

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?

Provides clear operational guidance: select a stage with the outcome, supply a reason, and require an explicit close date for deals. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., correct_closure for already-closed records), 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.