run_close

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden, and it does so richly. It discloses that the tool writes postings and a decision log, that decisions are governed by pre-signed bundles, that failed re-derivation causes matches to be dropped with refusals recorded, and that the return value reflects the actual decision-log contents. This is far beyond minimal transparency.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose, then adds constraints and behavioral guarantees in a logical order. Despite being longer than average, every sentence adds meaningful information; none of it is filler or repetition of the schema.

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 tool with no annotations, the description gives strong behavioral context, return-value provenance, and constraint details. It is slightly incomplete on parameter semantics and does not point to list_loops/list_source_sets for discovering valid inputs, but the existing output schema and the behavioral detail cover most of what an agent needs to use it safely.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not define loop or source_set or explain how valid values are obtained. It says the caller chooses 'which loop and which period,' yet the schema parameter is source_set, not period, which may create ambiguity about what source_set represents. The only helpful semantic point is that there are no other optional parameters.

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 opening line 'Close one period: match, verify, post, record' is a specific verb plus resource and names the full operation pipeline. It distinguishes run_close from siblings like run_match (which only matches) and get_close (which returns a close), so an agent can understand what this tool is for without inspecting other definitions.

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 clearly states the tool's scope: a caller picks 'which loop and which period and nothing else.' It also explicitly excludes other kinds of behavior ('no policy argument, no tolerance, no rule set') and notes that tolerance cannot be widened here. It does not name sibling alternatives, but it gives enough context to know when this tool is appropriate.

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