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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the authorization roles required, the assignment side effect that affects the caller, and the fact that acknowledgment is not the terminal state of the incident. Only the return/response behavior is left unstated, which the output schema covers.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the authorization requirement, and the scope boundary. The primary action is front-loaded and nothing is redundant with the 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?

For a two-parameter state-mutating tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety and idempotency, and an output schema handling return values, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: role gating, side effect, and the boundary against resolution.

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% and both parameters (partnerId, incidentId) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no new meaning about the parameters, such as whether the incident must belong to the given agency workspace.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Marks an agency incident as acknowledged") plus the side effect ("assigns its follow-up to you"), and explicitly bounds the operation with "It does not resolve the incident." It differentiates the concept of acknowledging from resolving, though it does not name a sibling tool that performs the resolution step.

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 provides a clear precondition ("Requires an agency owner, admin or operator") and an explicit exclusion (this is not the resolution step; "recovery is confirmed separately"). It stops short of naming the alternative tool, so the agent must infer which sibling confirms recovery, but the when-to-use context is unambiguous.

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