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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'It changes nothing' largely restates structured data. What the description does add is meaningful: authorization scope (client owner who received the notification) and a readiness precondition (training complete). It says nothing about what happens when the precondition fails or how the evidence is bounded in time, which keeps it at a solid-but-not-rich level.

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, front-loaded with the core capability, then the eligibility constraints. Nothing is padded. The closing 'It changes nothing' is short but partially redundant with the read-only annotation, which is the only reason it is not a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers eligibility, viewer authorization, and the fact that the operation is inert. Combined with 75% schema coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly. Missing is any statement of what a rejection looks like when the revision or training precondition fails.

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 75% with three of four parameters documented, so the schema already carries most semantic weight and the baseline is 3. The description gestures at the optional fingerprint parameter's role ('for acknowledgement'), but that phrasing is ambiguous — it reads as output rather than an optional input, and expectedRevision's concurrency-rejection meaning is left entirely to the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — it returns evidence that a real call reached the client's voice line and produced a delivered lead notification — plus a fingerprint for acknowledgement. That is far more concrete than the name alone. It stops short of naming the paired sibling (agency_installation_approve_route_receipt), so the read-versus-approve split is only implied by 'fingerprint for acknowledgement'.

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?

It gives clear applicability gates: only voice intake installations with complete training, and only the client owner who received the notification. Those are conditions under which the tool is valid, which is real usage guidance. It does not explicitly say 'use approve_route_receipt instead if you intend to acknowledge', so the alternative selection is left to inference.

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