Five-day close workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states actions and outputs but does not disclose side effects, permissions, data mutation, or whether 'flashes covenants' or exception classification writes anything. This is a meaningful gap for a workflow-level operation.

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 pack the gate list, conditional behaviors, and output metrics without filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose; the second adds conditional and return details. Slightly dense but well organized.

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 covers the workflow's gates and named metrics, but with no output schema and no annotations it does not explain return structure, side effects, prerequisites, or how the optional covenant/config options are supplied. That leaves an agent with guesses about invocation consequences beyond what is stated.

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 single close parameter is already described in the schema with 100% coverage, listing period, now, freeze_at, arrays, and optional fields. The description adds conditional behavior (invoices trigger classification; optional covenant flash) but does not add structural meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Run the six-gate five-day close reference') and enumerates the six gates, distinguishing it as an end-to-end workflow from focused siblings like close_readiness or classify_ap_exceptions. It also states the conditional classification, covenant flash, and metric outputs, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

Usage context is implied by the title and gate list: this is for executing the full close workflow. However, the description never explicitly says when to choose it over close_readiness, classify_ap_exceptions, or the covenant tools, nor does it mention excluded scenarios.

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