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

Discloses the behavior annotations omit: it posts a final true-up Adjustment that moves money, resolves the open balance to $0, then freezes the agreement so no future transactions calculate against it, and requires the account to be connected. The 'Terminal' label and the dry-run-first requirement give the agent the irreversibility profile that readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false alone do not 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?

Front-loaded with the action and the terminal warning, then exclusions, then the call protocol, then requirements. Slightly long and heavy on capitalization for emphasis, but each sentence carries distinct information rather than repeating the schema.

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 money-moving terminal mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes (open balance to $0, status to 'closed'), what happens afterward (no further calculations), how to preview it safely, and what is required. Nothing an agent needs before calling 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds value by framing confirm as a two-step dry-run-then-post protocol and naming agreement_id as a hard requirement ('Needs the agreement_id'). It does not explain force or reason, which the schema already covers.

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 an agreement) and pins the scope as terminal: 'the terminal true-up at the END of its life'. It explicitly disclaims the two nearest siblings, compute_close and settlement, so an agent can separate it from the periodic run without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit when-not ('This is NOT the periodic run (compute_close) or the periodic payout (settlement)'), a prerequisite (connected Aurgus account), and an exact call protocol: dry-run without confirm first, then re-call with confirm:true. Nothing is left to inference.

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