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

Despite annotations covering idempotency and safety profile, the description adds substantial behavioral context: deprecation status, required scopes (agent.inbox.report plus read scopes), agent-scoped bearer key requirement with the explicit note that member/facility keys cannot impersonate, idempotency replay semantics, and the constraint that reports cannot approve or complete facility handling. This is well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Dense but front-loaded with the critical deprecation warning and the endpoint, and every sentence carries actionable information (auth, scopes, idempotency, retry rules). The run-on construction and rapid topic shifts cost it a point, but there is little true filler.

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?

With an output schema present the description need not explain returns, and it fully covers auth model, required scopes, deprecation lifecycle, idempotency behavior, and the semantic boundary that reporting is not approval. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful qualifiers: send the exact fetched context_version, a non-sensitive run_id, and the outcome, tying context_version to its source (get_agent_inbox_context). This adds value beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 ('Report actual external-worker processing through /v1/agent-inbox/:id/acknowledgments') and immediately marks the tool as deprecated with no successor, so an agent knows both what it does and its lifecycle status. The 'actual ... processing' framing also implicitly distinguishes it from proposal-type siblings like propose_agent_inbox_handling.

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 usage conditions: report actual processing, never report 'processed' before doing the work, retry only the same idempotency_key, and never substitute another key or mail API after a denial. It does not explicitly name a successor or an alternative sibling, but the deprecation notice and the proposal/report distinction provide strong routing context.

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