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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds non-obvious behavior beyond them: closing is irreversible, closed items stay on record, the user must be consulted first, and the action does not consume the daily quota — the last detail is unavailable anywhere else.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the finality constraint, then the user-consultation caveat and quota note. All sentences carry information, though the quota sentence is a slight tail-end addendum rather than tightly integrated.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover safety semantics. What remains — irreversibility, record retention, user-consent requirement, quota immunity — is fully covered, so an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents that id is the feedback id as returned by send_feedback and list_feedback. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (close) plus resource (feedback this account sent) and an explicit scope qualifier about when the user considers it resolved or unwanted. It also implicitly separates itself from edit_feedback by stating closing is final and feedback cannot be changed once closed.

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?

Gives the triggering condition ('when the user says it is resolved or no longer wanted'), a required precondition ('Ask the user first'), and names the alternative path for reopening ('raising it again means sending new feedback'), which routes the agent to send_feedback.

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