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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds specific behavioral detail: it charges accepted completes, releases the hold back to the wallet, and prevents future rejections. This financial and finality context goes beyond the annotation, though it does not address auth requirements or error handling.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and key effects, and a clear safety warning. No redundant phrasing; every clause adds value.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary behavior, finality, and a user-confirmation prerequisite. It does not mention what happens on failure or return format, but these are minor given the simplicity and the annotations.

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 single parameter survey_id is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including its source and type. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so a baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the weight.

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 the verb 'close' with a specific resource ('a running survey'), and enumerates the concrete effects: stops fielding, charges accepted completes, releases hold. It also emphasizes finality ('Final — no more rejections after this'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pause_survey or resume_survey.

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 advises 'Confirm with the user first,' implying a prerequisite for this irreversible action. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like pause_survey (for temporary stops) or delete_survey (for permanent removal). The finality is stated but the when-to-use vs. siblings is left mostly to inference.

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