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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering mutation. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the 'exact-intent confirmation' gate, the entitlement requirement, and the precise side-effects of publish. No contradiction with annotations. However, it omits the version-conflict behavior implied by expected_version and the significance of the idempotency_key, which are material behavioral traits for a stateful command.

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 sentences with no filler, and the action list is front-loaded. However, the opening sentence is a dense, run-on enumeration of nine actions that is hard to parse, and the 'Requires Startup or higher' entitlement is buried at the end rather than stated upfront. Compact but not optimally structured.

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 nine discriminated variants, optimistic concurrency, cryptographic hashes, and confirmation tokens, the description is thin. It never explains expected_version mechanics, the meaning of content_hash/evidence_fingerprint, the role of idempotency_key, or the confirmation_token flow. The output schema exists (so return values are covered), but the command's orchestration protocol is under-specified for an agent to call it correctly across all branches.

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 must compensate but largely does not. It mentions the action verbs, which helps map to the discriminator values, but leaves the non-obvious parameters unexplained: expected_version (optimistic concurrency), content_hash and evidence_fingerprint (64-hex hashes for approve_report), idempotency_key, and confirmation_token. An agent cannot correctly invoke approve_report without knowing what those hashes represent.

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 purpose: an orchestrator for the monthly close process, enumerating its actions (start a month, save financials, refresh evidence, save report, approve/publish revision, complete close). This maps well onto the 9 discriminated variants. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like founder_close.get (read) or founder_close.refresh_room, relying on the agent to infer that 'command' is the write-side counterpart.

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?

Provides procedural guidance: 'Read the month first and use its current version' (optimistic concurrency), clarifies publish scope ('does not send a message or refresh an investor room'), and states the 'Requires Startup or higher' prerequisite. But it never names alternatives or exclusions — e.g., when to use founder_close.get vs. this command, or when refresh_room is appropriate — so the agent must infer routing.

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