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

Annotations include destructiveHint: false and openWorldHint: false, but no readOnlyHint. The description adds useful context about the tool being a prerequisite for progression, but doesn't describe side effects, idempotency, or what happens after acknowledgement. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action, includes an example, and states a requirement. It's slightly dense but every clause adds value, with no 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?

For a simple acknowledgement action with an output schema, the description covers what and when, but leaves warningTypes values unspecified. Overall, it's adequate for an agent to know when to call it, though details on warning types are 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 covers formationId with 'UUID value wrapper' but warningTypes has no description. The tool description doesn't explain what strings warningTypes expects (e.g., warning codes) or how they relate to the warnings mentioned. At 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 clearly states the tool's function: acknowledging entity-type warnings. It uses a specific verb ('acknowledges') and identifies the resource ('entity-type warnings'), distinguishing it from siblings like formation_set_company_type or formation_create_formation.

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?

The description provides explicit usage context: 'Required before proceeding whenever warnings were raised while setting the company type.' This tells the agent when the tool must be invoked, though it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it.

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