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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's added value is the auth requirement ('Requires the admin_token') and the precise effect (clears an expired automatic close time) — both are things the annotations cannot express.

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 sentences, no waste, effect first and prerequisite second. Every clause earns its place.

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 state-transition tool with a fully annotated safety profile and no output schema, the description covers effect, trigger condition and auth. Minor gap: it doesn't say what happens if the decision wasn't auto-closed, or what state responses already collected remain in.

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 decision_id and admin_token are already fully documented. The description only restates that admin_token is required, adding no format or usage meaning beyond the schema.

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 and the state transition: 'Accept responses again after closing'. The parenthetical clarifies which kind of closing it undoes, which separates it in practice from close_decision, though the sibling is never named.

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?

Implies the when (after a decision has closed, specifically by an automatic close time that has passed) but gives no explicit when-not or alternative — e.g. what to do if it was closed manually rather than by timer.

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