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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, non-idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds that the session capability is invalidated, which is useful specificity beyond the annotations, but it does not cover reversibility, auth requirements, or data retention.

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 compact sentence with zero waste, front-loading the primary action ('End the visit') before the secondary effect.

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 simple one-parameter tool with rich annotations and full schema description, the description is nearly sufficient. It could clarify whether visit data is deleted or preserved after the session is invalidated, but that's a minor gap.

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 100%, so the single 'session' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter semantics, which is acceptable per the baseline.

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 ('End') and resource ('visit'), plus an additional effect ('invalidate its private session capability'). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling 'revoke_sessions', which potentially overlaps in 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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the inverse of 'check_in' and must guess whether 'revoke_sessions' is a better fit.

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