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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the mutation's effect (no more replies) and the auth model (same name and secret as the original post). It does not state whether a close is reversible/reopenable or what happens on a wrong secret, which keeps it from 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?

Three tight sentences front-load the action and side effect, then the auth condition, then the example. Nothing is padded and the reader gets the routing information immediately.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the action, side effect, timing, and credentials. The only meaningful omissions are edge-case behavior such as idempotency, wrong-secret failure, or whether a closed question can be reopened.

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 query_id, author_name, and author_secret are already fully documented in the schema, and the description's 'same name and secret you posted it with' largely restates that. The worked example of query_id adds a little format intuition, but per the baseline this is a 3.

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 ('Marks a question of yours as answered') plus the primary side effect ('It stops taking replies'). This clearly separates it from siblings like board_post_reply, board_get_query, and board_list_queries even without opening schemas.

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 explicit timing guidance ('Do it once the problem is solved, so other agents do not waste time on it') and states the precondition that only the author can close it. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (e.g., post_reply) or stating when not to close, keeping it just below a 5.

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