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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, which the description does not contradict. The description adds real context the annotations lack: an authentication requirement and the fact that the action is effectively one-way from the agent's side ('reopening is the care team's job'). It omits what happens to the record/how the result is confirmed, keeping it short of a 5.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the auth prerequisite front-loaded before the action. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter mutation, though the trailing 'reopening' clause could be folded in more tightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers auth, the ID sources, and the boundary of the action. What remains unspecified is the return/confirmation behavior after resolving, which is a minor gap for a simple state-change tool.

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 coverage is 50% (profile_id documented in schema as coming from get_my_health; side_effect_id undocumented there). The description supplies the missing provenance for side_effect_id, which is genuinely additive, but gives no format, validity, or closure-state constraints beyond that — baseline 3 for a half-covered 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 and resource ('Mark one of the profile's open side effects as resolved') and scopes it to open side effects on a given profile. The clause 'Reopening one is the care team's job' implicitly separates it from report_side_effect and from any un-resolve action, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 clear preconditions (must be signed in with a Deer account) and the source of the identifier (side_effect_id from get_my_health), plus a negative case: reopening is not this tool's job. It does not name the sibling report_side_effect as the alternative for a different use case, so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing.

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