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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds the crucial nuance that this is a temporary, self-healing invalidation — visitors are re-logged-in with a fresh token on next open — which materially reframes what 'destructive' means here. It also discloses the owner-only auth requirement. It does not state rate limits or the response shape.

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, zero filler, with the action and its consequence front-loaded before the permission constraint. Every clause 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 one-parameter, high-impact mutation the description covers action, effect, recovery, and authorization — enough for correct invocation. The only gap is that, with no output schema present, it does not say what the call returns or confirm whether the logout is immediate or batched.

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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including the pointer to list_products, so the schema already does the work. The description's 'a site's form' only loosely maps to product_id and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Log every visitor out of a site's form') and immediately explains the resulting state, so the agent knows exactly what operation it is invoking. No sibling tool performs session invalidation, so this is unambiguous against the long list of form/product tools.

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?

'Owner only' supplies the key prerequisite that gates whether the agent should even attempt the call. There is no competing alternative to route away from, so no exclusion guidance is needed; the only missing piece is a hint about when this is desirable (e.g., credential rotation, suspected compromise).

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