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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions retiring to a historical record, implying mutation, but does not detail side effects, required permissions, or whether the action is reversible.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that clearly states the purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but could benefit from structured details.

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?

With no output schema and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the retirement process, what happens to related data, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 60%; three parameters (kind, number, repo_name) have descriptions, but npub and dpop_token are undocumented. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, failing to compensate for the missing descriptions.

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 specifies a clear action (retire) on a specific resource (stale funding block) and a condition (when its item closes). It distinguishes from general funding tools like 'cypher_mark_funding_state', though not explicitly.

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?

The description hints at when to use ('when its item closes'), providing context. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use or explicit alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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