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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job disclosing the key behavioral trait: the address stops working immediately and is forgotten, so it will not reappear after the computer wakes. That persistence semantics is exactly the non-obvious detail an agent needs. It stops short of covering error behavior (e.g., unexposing a port that isn't published) or whether the call is idempotent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the consequence. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential effect and its persistence semantics. Missing only edge-case behavior (already-unexposed port, error handling) that would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 0% for the single 'port' parameter, so the description is the only source, and it only indirectly signals that 'port' is a published port number rather than any local port. It adds no format, range, or matching detail beyond the schema's 1-65535 bound.

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 ('Stop publishing') and resource ('a port'), scoped to the internet. It doesn't name the sibling expose_port explicitly, but the inverse relationship is unmistakable from the verb and the sibling list.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool to call to take back a port published with expose_port, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite check (must the port be currently exposed?), and no mention of list_exposed_ports as a discovery step.

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