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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so well: it states the emitted event ('process.completed' on 'run:{id}'), clarifies that completing the last step is not required, and discloses the refusal behavior for runs that already have an outcome.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action appears in the first sentence, followed by two terse sentences that add high-value behavioral details. No sentence is wasted.

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?

Given the fully documented schema, the presence of an output schema, and the behavioral details in the description (event emission, not requiring the last step, refusal on already-outcome runs), an agent has enough information to invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters. The tool description adds little beyond naming 'outcome criteria and result,' which gives the baseline score of 3 rather than requiring extra compensation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Close a Process run with outcome criteria and result.' It also adds a distinguishing nuance, 'Does not require finishing the last step,' which separates it from process_run_advance and other process-run siblings.

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 gives clear context for when this tool applies: closing a run with outcome criteria and result, even without finishing the last step. It also notes a firm exclusion ('A run that already has an outcome is refused'), though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for other scenarios.

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