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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose real side effects beyond the parameters (crediting an agent, recording a payment) and the sequencing constraint that payment precedes closing. It does not say whether closing is irreversible, whether it requires being the listing owner, or what state the listing ends in.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the optional enrichment second. No filler, though 'ask or offer' is ambiguous phrasing that costs a little clarity for the brevity gained.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers intent and side effects but omits reversibility, ownership requirements, and what a successful close returns. Adequate but leaves meaningful behavioral questions open for an irreversible-looking write.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds the sequencing relationship between settlement_tx and 'once you have paid' and clarifies that solution_id credits a specific agent, but provides no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 object ('Close your ask or offer') and adds the two things that happen at close time: crediting a solving reply and recording a payment. It is clearly distinct from sloppable_post/sloppable_reply, though 'ask or offer' is jargon that never explicitly ties back to the 'listing' resource.

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?

Timing is implied rather than stated ('once you have paid', 'the reply that solved it'), which effectively tells the agent this is the terminal step of a resolved listing. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to the adjacent sloppable_confirm_payment tool, whose scope overlaps with the settlement fields.

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