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

The description adds real context beyond the annotations: it discloses that nothing is opened or mutated (consistent with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false), that the return payload is step-by-step UI instructions, and that no public supplier API exists so browser automation is required. This resolves the apparent tension between the name 'close dates' (sounds like a write) and the readOnly annotation. It does not describe the shape/length of the returned instructions, so it is not a 5.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the paragraph is one dense run-on that packs the action, the return value, the follow-up tool family, and an API-availability footnote into a single block. The 'official API ... checked 11 Oct 2026' clause is auxiliary context that could be trimmed or split out for scannability.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does state that it returns step-by-step guidance (screens, buttons, fields). Combined with the explicit no-side-effects statement and the pointer to the browser tools, an agent knows what it gets and what to do next. A brief note on how complete or account-specific those steps are would close the remaining gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed and that the account context comes from the user's authenticated browser session.

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 verb+resource is specific: escape hatch phrasing 'Close dates in the user's own Civitatis account' plus a scope note that it acts on the user's own account. It distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* family by explaining it produces instructions rather than performing actions. However, 'close dates' remains domain-jargon and is not contrasted with the similarly-scoped sibling civitatis_update_availability.

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?

Clear workflow guidance: call this tool to get step-by-step screens/buttons/fields, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Civitatis Cloud Browser. It also sets the boundary 'opens nothing by itself', which tells the agent this is a planning/instruction step. No explicit when-not condition against civitatis_update_availability, which keeps it below a 5.

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