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

Annotations already cover non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that it refuses already-resolved incidents and that it writes a final 'resolved' update. This goes beyond what the annotations alone express, though it does not detail side effects such as subscriber notifications.

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 tightly worded sentences communicate the core action, the relationship to the sibling tool, and an important refusal behavior. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 fully documented parameters, clear siblings, and safety-related annotations, the description is complete enough to guide correct invocation. The refusal condition and the 'final resolved update' behavior cover the key operational context, and no output schema is present to require return-value documentation.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters with meaningful descriptions, including defaults for language and notify_subscribers. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Close a status page incident with a final resolved update') and clearly differentiates this from add_status_page_incident_update by framing it as the same operation with status 'resolved'. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from nearby siblings.

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 names add_status_page_incident_update as the equivalent operation with status 'resolved', which tells an agent when to choose this tool. It also provides a clear when-not condition: it refuses an incident that is already resolved.

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