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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the real behavioral burden and does so with two useful traits: gaps are never filled on the client's behalf, and open items block signing the close. It does not disclose what resolving does to history or whether resolution is reversible, which keeps it below 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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition before the operations and the closing constraint. Slightly dense em-dash parenthetical, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the register is, what the actions do, and the consequence of leaving items open. It does not describe what a list returns (item fields, ordering, counts) or whether opening an item is idempotent, which leaves a small gap.

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 100% and every parameter is already documented inline, including which action each parameter applies to. The description reinforces this by tying resolution to an id, but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (the engagement's open-items register), defines it concretely with three example item types (missing document, missing term, unmatched figure), and enumerates the three operations. An agent can tell this apart from content tools like receive_document or sign_close 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?

It states the three usable actions ('List them, open a new one, or resolve one by id') and adds a precondition that matters for sequencing: 'the close cannot be signed while any item remains open.' It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool or stating when-not-to-use, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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