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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the idempotency sentence largely restates structured data. However, the description adds genuine non-schema context: the operator dashboard updates live (an external side effect) and it names the returned fields, giving the agent information annotations can't convey.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger, then the effect, then the exclusion. No filler; 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description still supplies trigger, exclusion, idempotency, and the live-dashboard side effect, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, so the description needn't explain them. The text hints at the two-state nature ('resolved or reopen it') but adds no format or default details beyond what the schema provides; 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+resource pair (resolve/reopen a conversation) and explicitly carves out the adjacent sibling behavior with 'Not for replying to the customer,' which separates it from send_message. An agent can select it 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 a clear trigger ('when someone wants to mark a customer conversation resolved or done, or reopen it') and an explicit when-not ('Not for replying to the customer'). It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use instead, so it falls just under full marks.

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