metering__close_period

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals 'exactly-once' semantics and immutability of the invoice, but omits side effects (e.g., what happens to open events afterward), idempotency, error conditions, or required permissions. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core action. Every word adds value: 'Freeze', 'immutable', 'exactly-once', and the settlement hint. No unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover return value, prerequisites, and post-conditions. It mentions exactly-once but not what the tool returns (likely an invoice ID or confirmation). The agent lacks a complete picture of the tool's behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for the only parameter 'meter_id'. The title 'Meter Id' is self-explanatory, but the description should confirm its role (e.g., 'the ID of the meter whose period to close'). Without this, the agent lacks context for proper parameter construction.

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 ('freeze all open events into an immutable invoice') and the resource (open events/invoice), with a specific verb and resource. It also adds the key property 'exactly-once' and explains the invoice's role in settlement, distinguishing it from other metering tools.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like metering__record_usage or metering__usage_summary. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., all events recorded) or situations to avoid, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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