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

Annotations already mark the operation as non-readonly and destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it returns an ordered step plan and exit price, requires a payment header past the free tier, notes geo-gating, and explains idempotency replay semantics. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 description is compact, front-loaded with the core action, and uses clear section markers for returns and key parameters. Every sentence adds value, though the markdown formatting could be slightly cleaner.

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 12-parameter, multi-step financial operation, the description is thin. It overlooks critical operational details like how buy_with_amount interacts with market pricing, the role of slippage_bps, and whether pay_in_crank affects execution. The output schema may help, but the description alone is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 semantic weight. It explains only idempotency_key, jurisdiction, and a passing mention of short_id and payment_header, leaving the other 8 parameters (e.g., buy_with_amount, slippage_bps, marginfi_account, pay_in_crank) completely undocumented in both schema and description. This is a significant gap.

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 states a clear verb ('close') and resource ('tracked short'), then breaks the action into an ordered step sequence (buy token, repay loan, withdraw collateral) and notes the return value (ordered step plan + exit price). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like short_open and short_status.

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?

It provides practical usage context: short_id comes from short_open, a payment_header is required beyond the free tier, jurisdiction geo-gating is inherited from short_open, and idempotency_key enables replay. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to know when and how to invoke it.

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