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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description concretizes the idempotency ('closing a closed job succeeds') and explains the graceful drain semantics, which is real context beyond the boolean hints. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but for a job-state transition that is minor.

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 compact sentences, no filler, with the core action and its completion semantics front-loaded and idempotency plus return value following. Every sentence earns its place.

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 state-transition tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when the effect takes place, idempotency, and the return value ('Returns the job object'). Only the relationship to the sibling cancel tool is missing.

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% and the single job_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its provenance (returned by spicrawl_batch_submit or spicrawl_batch_list). The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stop an open batch job accepting items') with the resulting behavior ('completes once its queued work drains'), which is far more informative than the title 'Close an open batch job'. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling spicrawl_batch_cancel, leaving the close-vs-cancel distinction to inference.

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 phrase 'so it completes once its queued work drains' implies the graceful-drain use case and implicitly distinguishes it from cancellation, but no alternative tool is named and no when-not guidance (e.g. 'use batch_cancel to abandon queued work') is given.

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