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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the cryptographic scheme (Ed25519 + ML-DSA-87), the on-chain anchor, dual-organization log write, and the fact that either party may trigger it. It stops short of stating the sealing is irreversible or noting the idempotent replay behavior, which would have earned a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence leads with the action, then the consequences, then the requirements. No filler; every clause carries operational meaning.

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 one-parameter terminal mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers consequences, authorization, and mutability actors. It omits what the response contains and whether closing is irreversible, which are the remaining gaps an agent might want.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('rm_... ID'), so the schema already carries the full burden. The description adds no room_id format, prefix, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 and resource ('Close a room and seal its transcript') and immediately elaborates on what sealing entails (signed hash, on-chain anchor, dual logging). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like room_open, room_transcript, and room_verify.

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?

'Either party can close' and 'Requires the organization API key' give clear preconditions for invocation. However, it never explicitly contrasts with room_transcript or room_verify, nor states when NOT to close, so an agent must infer the boundary cases.

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