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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable beyond-annotation context: it requires actions.write, preserves the finding/evidence/score, and forbids inferring customer intent. This gives the agent a clear operational and safety profile.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose, then state prerequisites and behavior. There is no filler, redundancy, or unhelpful repetition of schema fields.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers confirmation, permissions, scope, and non-destructive behavior. It does not explicitly spell out the relationship between auditRunId and findingId or return behavior, but those gaps are minor given the self-explanatory names and idempotent annotation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for the most nuanced parameters: urls must be exactly the URLs shown in the audit finding, and confirmedIntent must reflect explicit customer confirmation rather than inference. auditRunId and findingId are left to their self-explanatory names.

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 ('acknowledge'), a clear resource ('retrieval restriction'), and a precise scope ('only the exact URLs displayed in an audit finding'). This makes its purpose distinct from siblings like reconsider_retrieval_restriction.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: with explicit customer confirmation, for exact displayed URLs, and with actions.write permission. It also gives a 'never infer customer intent' guardrail, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or contrast with reconsider_retrieval_restriction.

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