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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, and the description adds substantive context beyond that: closing emits a final metered receipt (rcpt://) that settles via the claim path. It omits error behavior for already-closed sessions and any authorization requirements.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and no filler. The domain jargon ("rcpt://", "claim path") is dense but purposeful rather than redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partially compensates by explaining that a metered receipt is emitted and settled on close. It still leaves open what the call returns, whether the receipt must be claimed separately, and failure modes.

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 a single required parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must supply meaning, but it never mentions sessionId or its expected format/source. The schema only says it is a required string, leaving the agent to guess where the identifier comes from.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Close a resource session"), which an agent can distinguish from the request-creation siblings. It does not explicitly name which sibling opens the session, so differentiation relies on inference from the lifecycle wording.

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?

Usage is only implied: closing is the terminal step for a session created elsewhere, and "settles through the normal claim path" hints at the follow-on settlement flow. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus wide_request_status or wide_claim, and no preconditions.

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