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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world. The description adds two things annotations cannot convey: the admin_token is required for authorization, and existing results are retained rather than removed. It stops short of saying what happens when closing an already-closed decision or whether in-flight responses are accepted.

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?

Three terse sentences, zero filler, with the primary effect stated first and the auth prerequisite last. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, data retention, and auth. Minor gap: no statement of the error condition when the decision is already closed or of what a successful response returns.

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 both parameters (admin_token provenance, decision_id accepting an id or SettleIt link) are already documented. The description only restates that admin_token is required, adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Stop accepting responses. Results stay visible." states a concrete verb (stop accepting) and the outcome (results preserved), which separates it from delete_decision by implication. It never names reopen_decision or delete_decision explicitly, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 "results stay visible" clause hints at when to prefer this over delete_decision, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and alternatives like reopen_decision are not mentioned. Usage is implied, not directed.

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