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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, idempotent mutation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: existing threads are preserved and new agent connections are rejected. This goes beyond the annotation hints without contradicting them.

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 zero filler. The action and headline effect are front-loaded, and the behavioral consequences are stated compactly and clearly.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and side effects. It does not mention reversibility or how to reopen the address, but the sibling publish_rail implies that path, so the description is nearly complete.

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 optional 'token' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema already carries that burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Close the public address.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like publish_rail (opposite action) and disconnect_agent/block_agent by stating the exact effect ('Existing threads stay. New agents cannot connect.'), so an agent can distinguish it from alternative operations.

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 implies usage—use this to stop new agents from connecting while preserving existing threads—but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as block_agent or disconnect_agent. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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