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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and non-read-only, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: an entitlement tier requirement (Startup or higher), dual read+write consent, the need for a stable idempotency key, and exact-intent confirmation. It also implies optimistic concurrency via the current-revision instruction, which is exactly the kind of safety behavior an agent needs before a destructive close.

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 tightly packed sentences with the gating condition front-loaded and no filler. Slightly dense phrasing in 'use its current revision when changing an existing record' costs a little readability, but every clause carries information.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation with an output schema present, the description covers permissions, gating prerequisites, idempotency, and concurrency expectations; return values are already handled by the output schema. Nothing material is missing for correct 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does for three of four params: idempotency_key ('stable'), confirmation_token ('exact-intent confirmation'), and expected_version ('use its current revision'). close_id and project_id are only obliquely implied by 'an existing record', leaving a gap, but overall the semantics are well conveyed.

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 and resource ('Complete a monthly close') and scopes it as a terminal, gate-gated action, which cleanly separates it from sibling steps like founder_close.approve_report, publish_report, and start_close. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition ('only after the canonical financial, evidence and report gates pass') and directs the agent to read current state and reuse the current revision before mutating. It does not name the specific sibling to call for that read (founder_close.get) or state what happens if gates fail, so it stops just short of full when/when-not routing.

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