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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further with concrete destructive effects (exit IP freed, cookies/storage purged irrecoverably), the retained record with `released` status, and the lease-refusal rule with `force` — all behavioral context the annotations do not carry.

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 imperative trigger is front-loaded, and each subsequent clause earns its place by adding a distinct fact (destruction, irrecoverability, record retention, refusal condition, return value). No padding or restatement of the name.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description states the return value ('Returns the session object'), and for a two-parameter destructive tool it covers preconditions, side effects, recovery, and post-state completely. An agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds operational meaning to `force` by framing it as breaking a lease held by an active scrape ('only set when you know it is safe'), which enriches the schema's own wording rather than repeating it.

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 ('End a session') and immediately scopes it against alternatives by noting the record stays visible as `released`, implicitly distinguishing it from spicrawl_session_delete. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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 an explicit trigger ('when you are done with it'), consequences that steer away from misuse (cannot be used with spicrawl_scrape thereafter), recovery guidance (start a new session and log in again), and a precondition for refusal with the `force` escape hatch. Nothing about when to call this vs. siblings is left to inference.

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