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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'read-only diagnosis' is consistent with them. However, for a tool literally named close it never says whether the session is finalized, whether evidence is consumed, or whether it can be re-invoked for a refreshed verdict — the single most important behavioral question here stays unanswered.

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 no filler and the key qualifier ('read-only') placed early. Slight density of internal jargon keeps it from being maximally readable.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still missing the lifecycle detail an agent needs to sequence this correctly: does calling it end the investigation, and can investigation_open be resumed afterwards?

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 100% and both parameters carry their own descriptions (context_id workspace semantics, investigation_id provenance), so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about either parameter, which is acceptable but not value-adding.

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?

Names a concrete action pair (synthesize evidence, return canonical Veredicto markdown) and characterizes the result as a read-only diagnosis, so the agent knows what it gets back. It never states that it *closes/terminates* the session, so the name's core promise is left implicit, and 'investigation-core'/'Veredicto' are internal jargon.

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?

No statement about when this should be called versus continuing with other investigation steps, and no mention of the sibling investigation_open that produces the required investigation_id. The only hint is the parenthetical 'read-only diagnosis'; there are no exclusions or preconditions.

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