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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely carried by structured data. The description does add real value beyond that by disclosing the downstream consequence: booking, listing and cancelling require a fresh sign-in afterward. It does not say what happens when no session exists or whether re-authentication is prompted automatically, leaving a modest gap on a destructive tool.

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, front-loaded with the action and its effect, followed by the usage condition. Every clause carries information: the scope, the revocation, the downstream impact, and the triggers. There is no restatement of the title or filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output, destructive session tool with rich annotations, the definition covers what it does, what it costs the user, and when to call it. The main remaining ambiguity — behavior when already signed out, or confirmation expectations for a destructive action — is minor but real.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add and the baseline of 4 applies per the rubric. Nothing in the description compensates for or undermines that, though it also adds no parameter-level context.

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 and resource ('Sign the client out of Norm on this connection') and immediately qualifies the scope with 'on this connection', which tells an agent this is a per-connection session action rather than a global account change. It also names the concrete capability being revoked ('the Norm sign-in'), so it is clearly distinct from the booking/listing siblings.

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?

Gives two explicit triggers: when the client asks to log out, and when someone else wants to use the same assistant. That is clear context for invocation and covers the handover case an agent might otherwise miss. It stops short of a when-not or prerequisite statement (e.g. what to do if no session exists), so it is not a full 5.

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