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

Annotations already declare write/destructive/idempotent/openWorld status. The description adds valuable context beyond these: the durable-action nature, separate approval and execution, consent requirements, and read-before-write with current revision. It stops short of detailing what exactly is destroyed or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then requirements, then a usage note. No filler, but the final sentence about current revision is slightly cryptic without more parameter context.

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 complex tool with a nested schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and workflow but fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the agent still lacks guidance on the data payload and project_id.

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% across four parameters. The description mentions 'idempotency key' and 'confirmation' by name but provides no semantic detail, and it omits any explanation of project_id or the nested data payload (period, title). An agent cannot reliably infer parameter meaning from this text.

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 ('Prepare') and resource ('monthly close' as a durable action), making the tool's core intent clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling prepare tools like founder_ops.prepare_project_task or founder_close.start_close beyond the monthly-close scope.

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?

Prerequisites are given (Startup or higher, read/write consent, idempotency key, exact-intent confirmation) and the two-step approval/execution workflow is implied. Yet there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternative prepare or close tools, leaving selection partially to inference.

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