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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the session is ended/settled and that creating a new session is blocked until then, which is useful. However, it does not explain what 'settle' means, whether the operation is idempotent, what errors may occur, or what the response looks like.

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?

Three short sentences, each adding distinct value: the core action, the when-to-call guidance, and the key consequence. The description is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the essential usage context and a critical behavioral consequence. However, the ambiguous 'settle it' and the lack of response/error behavior leave an agent uncertain about what to expect after calling the tool, especially given the optional payment_signature parameter.

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 the input schema already provides detailed explanations for auth_token and payment_signature, including the payment challenge flow. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states a specific action ('End your active ISE session') on a specific resource (ISE session), and 'ISE' distinguishes it from the SDAC session tools. However, 'settle it' is vague and does not clarify whether this is a financial settlement, session finalization, or both.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Call this when you are done' and gives a concrete consequence: 'create_ise_session returns 409 SESSION_EXISTS' until the session is closed. This provides a clear when-to-use signal, though it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare with end_sdac_session.

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