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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the alert stays open and keeps counting occurrences, nothing can force-close it, and the tool requires an interactive OAuth connection because an API key is not a user. That auth constraint is exactly the kind of behavior an agent must know before invoking.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the ack-vs-resolve distinction, then the auth constraint, then parameter notes and a runnable example. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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. For a low-complexity write tool with two parameters, the description covers purpose, the ack/resolve boundary, the auth requirement, and both parameters — nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does: alert_id is 'the alert's id, from list_alerts' (source documented) and workspace accepts an id, name, or org-name/workspace-name form with a stated default. Both parameters are fully disambiguated beyond the bare schema types.

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 ('Acknowledge an alert: record that a human has seen it') and immediately distinguishes the action from the sibling concept of resolving ('Acknowledging is NOT resolving'). An agent can tell this apart from get_alert/list_alerts without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context for use (a human has seen the alert so it stops notifying) and an explicit when-not by ruling out resolution ('only the detector resolves it, once the condition clears'), plus an auth precondition. It does not name a concrete alternative tool, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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