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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: resolved=false routes the case to the BridgesAgents human team that follows up with the store, and premature closing counts as giving up on the issue. It does not disclose whether closing is reversible or how it affects order state, which the destructiveHint=true annotation already flags as risky.

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 tight sentences front-loaded with the triggering precondition, then the two branch outcomes, then the edge-case warning. No filler and no repetition of the name or 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 3-parameter mutation with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers precondition, both outcomes, and the abandonment edge case. The main remaining gap is what the agent gets back and whether the issue can be reopened.

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 baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by explaining the downstream consequence of the `resolved` boolean rather than merely restating 'true se resolveu'. It leaves `cartId` and `note` to the schema, which already documents them.

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 ('encerra/encerrar') and resource (ocorrência/issue), plus the outcome semantics of both resolved values. It is clearly distinguishable from open_issue by its closing semantics, but the description never names the sibling counterparts explicitly, leaving the differentiation implicit.

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 a concrete precondition ('Depois da resposta da loja, order.issue.status ANSWERED') and the branching consequence for each value, including the caution that resolved=true on an unanswered issue means abandoning it. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. wait or use open_issue) or explicitly stating when not to call it.

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