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 value beyond them: consent requirements, exact-intent confirmation, and concurrency guidance via 'current revision'. It does not clarify what the destructive aspect actually affects, which keeps it below a 5.

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 front-loaded sentences with the purpose first, then prerequisites, then version guidance. Every sentence carries information, though the closing 'Read current state...' sentence reads slightly generically for a create-style operation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers prerequisites, confirmation, idempotency and versioning for a destructive mutation. What is left vague is the scope of the carried-forward work and project_id, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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. It meaningfully explains three of four params (idempotency_key, expected_version via 'current revision', confirmation_token via 'exact-intent confirmation') and implies close_id through 'completed close'; only project_id is left unexplained.

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 ('Create the next monthly reporting period') and adds the distinguishing precondition ('from a completed close'), which separates it from siblings like founder_close.start_close and complete_close. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Gives concrete prerequisites (Startup tier, read+write consent, idempotency key, exact-intent confirmation) and implies the ordering by requiring a completed close as input. It does not explicitly name the sibling that produces that precondition or state when not to use it, so it stops 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.