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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: it writes only the caller's own record, is auto-approved so it runs immediately, is undoable on the same surface, and returns a count of inferred words rather than a plan_token. That is meaningful disclosure for a mutation tool, though it never says what is irreversibly lost if the undo window or surface changes.

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?

The core scoring/inference behavior is front-loaded, which is good. The confirmation and plan_token paragraphs, however, are largely boilerplate about approval policy and could be compressed to one clause without losing the message.

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 mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important behavior: it mutates state, is undoable, and returns an inferred-word count the agent should relay. Only the identity and validation of session_id remain undocumented.

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%, so the description carries the burden, yet it never mentions the sole parameter session_id — no format hints, no statement that only the caller's own session is valid. The single required identifier is conventional enough that the gap is tolerable but not filled.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: closes a check, scores it, and additionally infers standing on words the check did not ask about. That inference step distinguishes it from the answering/starting siblings even though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It implies timing ('when the caller asks for it', 'close a check') but never names which alternative to use instead, e.g. language_answer for still-working items or language_start_check for a new check. The confirmation paragraph clarifies execution policy rather than when-to-use versus alternatives.

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