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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that elapsed time alone does not trigger payment and that a tie or fewer than three decisive votes leaves the case inconclusive. It stops short of describing final side effects or reversibility, but the key behavioral caveats are present.

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 main action, followed by a compact and relevant caveat. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description provides the timing and outcome logic, but it lacks the practical input contract for required parameters and gives no post-close behavior or return expectations. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the tool is not quite fully specified for safe autonomous invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for all three required parameters, and the description adds nothing about id, expectedVersion, or idempotencyKey. In particular, expectedVersion and idempotencyKey need explanation around concurrency and retry semantics; the agent is left to guess from parameter names alone.

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 clearly states the action ('Close a case') and the timing condition ('after 72 hours'). It also clarifies the resource type, distinguishing it from sibling close_task. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with related case lifecycle tools such as reopen_case or open_evidence_case.

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 gives a clear temporal condition for use ('after 72 hours') and explains the consequence of inconclusive votes. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or recommend alternative tools, so the agent must infer when closing is actually appropriate.

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