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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the evidence gate (evidence_missing), the emitted event (process.completed on run:{id}), and the refusal condition for runs that already have an outcome. It doesn't mention permission requirements beyond the schema's evidence_override hint, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by concise behavioral notes. It is efficient with no filler, though the paragraph break mid-sentence ('but a template run still needs...') slightly interrupts flow.

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 an output schema exists, no return-value explanation is needed. The description covers the key edge cases (no need to finish the last step, evidence gate, refusal on already-completed runs, emitted event). It is nearly complete, missing only explicit permission notes and sibling routing.

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 schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds context about outcome_criteria being frozen on close and the evidence gate relevant to evidence_override, but most parameter meaning comes from the schema itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: 'Close a Process run with outcome criteria and result.' It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like process_run_fail, process_run_reopen, and process_run_advance, which handle different lifecycle transitions.

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 concrete preconditions: it doesn't require finishing the last step, but a template run needs evidence of its current and remaining steps. It also states that a run that already has an outcome is refused. It doesn't explicitly compare to process_run_fail or process_run_reopen as alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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