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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the useful facts that this is an acknowledgement step and that it does not initiate any call. However, it does not mention the expectedRevision guard that can reject the call, nor what the acknowledgement unlocks downstream, leaving behavior partly undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler: the action first, the prerequisites second, the non-effect last. Slight redundancy exists between 'the client owner acknowledging' and 'the client owner who received the notification,' but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, and the schema fully documents parameters, so the description is not required to explain those. What is missing is the tool's place in the approval sequence: what acknowledgement accomplishes, whether it is terminal or unblocks a subsequent route test, and how the revision conflict should be handled. For an operation inside a dense approval family, that context matters.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the fingerprint pattern and the expectedRevision rejection semantics. The description adds only the provenance of the fingerprint ('from preview_route_receipt') and the client-owner identity requirement. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the detail.

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: 'Records the client owner acknowledging the route test receipt they reviewed.' It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the preview step by naming preview_route_receipt as the source of the fingerprint, and from the actual test by saying 'It does not place any call.' A minor gap is that it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly-named approve siblings.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite chain: the caller must have the client owner who received the notification and the fingerprint produced by preview_route_receipt, implying preview must run first. The explicit negative 'It does not place any call' rules out the most likely misreading (that this triggers the route test). It stops short of naming exclusions such as when to use agency_installation_approve instead.

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