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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose key behavioral traits: it states the return shape ({ closed, pageId }), what 'closed:false' means when no such page exists, and that it targets a device via CDP. It doesn't mention permission/auth needs or side effects, but for a simple close operation the disclosure is reasonably complete.

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?

Three sentences are dense and purposeful: action and mechanism, use-case rationale, and return semantics. It is front-loaded with the core capability and includes no filler or redundant material.

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 simple close operation with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the return contract and the key nuance (closed:false). It doesn't enumerate edge cases or error scenarios, but the core information needed to invoke it correctly is present and complete enough for this tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (udid, pageId, socket) with meaning. The description adds that pageId comes from android_devtools_list_pages, which is helpful, and mentions the CDP mechanism, but doesn't add significant semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Close') and resource ('a debuggable tab/page on the device by pageId'), explicitly references the CDP /json/close mechanism, and distinguishes itself from siblings like android_devtools_list_pages. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without guessing.

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 says to use it 'to clean up stale tabs that accumulate across sessions and clutter android_devtools_list_pages', and tells the agent to get pageId from android_devtools_list_pages. This provides clear context, a use case, and an explicit source for the required parameter.

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