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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds real consequences beyond them — shut_off freezes an agent card, expected quiets the key's rules for a week, rotated serves as refund proof. It omits reversibility and permission prerequisites, which matters for a destructive tool.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then maps actions to outcomes; every clause carries information. The nested parentheses make it harder to parse than necessary, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the action vocabulary, the amount parameter, and the confirmation requirement. It lacks failure behavior and the confirm/execute sequencing relative to siblings such as waiting_shut_offs, leaving a small gap for a destructive, non-idempotent tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it mostly does: it explains all five action values, ties amount_usd to 'claim', ties incident_id to list_incidents, and implies confirmed via 'Confirm first'. The phrase 'confirmed as there' is ambiguous about exactly how confirmation is expressed.

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+resource ('One action on an incident from list_incidents') and enumerates the five actions with their meanings, which is far more than the title conveys. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings like shut_off_key, confirm_shut_off, or update_claim, so an agent could still pick the wrong entry point.

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 per-action selection logic: 'expected' means 'this was us', 'rotated' means the key was replaced everywhere, 'claim' starts a refund for amount_usd or the incident amount. It also instructs 'Confirm first.' It stops short of naming alternatives or when NOT to use this tool versus shut_off_key/confirm_shut_off.

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