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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with those. It adds value by disclosing the behavioral distinction between local sign-out and global sign-out with everywhere=true, which the annotations do not 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the optional parameter behavior is explained in the second sentence. Every word 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 simple logout tool with one optional parameter agreed with annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and scope. The destructive and idempotent hints handle safety expectations, and no return schema is needed for a likely void operation.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of the only parameter. It does so explicitly: 'everywhere=true' signs out of every assistant and device. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Signs out') and identifies the exact resource ('Awning in this assistant'), which clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools like booking and business management operations. It goes beyond the title by specifying the local scope and the global variant.

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?

The description makes the usage context clear: it signs the user out of Awning within this assistant, and only signs out everywhere when everywhere=true. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the tool's purpose is self-evident and there are no logout-related siblings.

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