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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds only that it 'closes' a question, without saying what closing entails, whether it is reversible, or what side effects occur. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description contributes little extra behavioral context.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the text is short, but 'Call with the action and its params' is filler and 'query actions says what each does' is grammatically awkward. Roughly half the sentences earn their 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 tool with a nested params object, no output schema, and an abstract domain, the description leaves core questions open: what a 'question' is, what the single action's params mean, and what the result of settling is. It is not sufficient for an agent to call the tool confidently without consulting query first.

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 only 33% (only 'actor' is described), so the description must compensate. It does partially: it names the 'confirmed' action and its params (upto, basis), information absent from the bare schema. But it never explains what 'upto' or 'basis' mean, and the nested 'params' object remains opaque.

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 'Close' and the object 'a question' give a rough idea (resolving/settling something), but the framing is metaphorical ('by someone's word or by evidence: a decision made, a hypothesis borne out') and never grounds the tool in a concrete domain. An agent can infer it is a state-closing action, but not clearly what resource it operates on or how it differs from siblings like revise, undo, or change.

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 points to a sibling ('query actions says what each does'), which is an explicit routing hint, and names one action ('confirmed'). However, it never says when to choose settle over revise, undo, change, or report, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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