Stale applications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further and defines the non-obvious computation: 'last touch' is the submit date or the newest *dated* follow-up log entry, explicitly excluding moved and dropped follow-ups. That is exactly the kind of internal rule an agent could not infer and would otherwise get wrong.

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, zero filler: the definition comes first, the sibling relationship last. Every clause (silence window, last-touch definition, follow-up exclusion) carries distinct semantic load rather than restating the name or title.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the single optional parameter is fully documented. The one behavioural subtlety that could cause a wrong call – what counts as the last touch – is spelled out, so nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 100% ('Silent at least this many days', default 30), so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by specifying the reference point the day count is measured from (submit date or newest dated follow-up, ignoring moved/dropped ones), which the schema field alone does not state.

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 names a specific resource (applications awaiting a reply) and gives the exact membership criteria: a waiting status, silence of `days`+ days, and no follow-up scheduled today or later. It explicitly distinguishes the set from related siblings in both directions – these are NOT followups_due (no future follow-up) and these are exactly what close_stale closes – so an agent can pick it apart from the 22 siblings without opening a schema.

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 criteria themselves imply when to call it (auditing neglected applications), and the closing clause routes the agent to `close_stale` as the write counterpart of this read. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' exclusion or prerequisite statement, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is clear rather than merely implied.

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