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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive open-world write, so the safety bar is partly covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: for `access` the claim stops awaiting access and the delivery clock starts, and for `received` the delivery has landed — i.e., it discloses the state transition this call triggers. It does not mention auth/permission failure modes, which is a minor gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, then the mode semantics, then the discovery path. Every sentence earns its place, though the `kind` explanations partially duplicate the schema's own enum descriptions.

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 mutating, no-output-schema tool this is largely complete: the action, the two modes and their side effects, and where to find the needed ids are all present, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. Missing only edge-case behavior such as error conditions or what happens if acknowledged twice.

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 schema already documents all five parameters including the `kind` enum. The description restates the `access`/`received` meanings (useful reinforcement) but adds no new semantics for intake_id, claim_id, status_token, or operator_token. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ... claim of a sealed bounty') plus the exact endpoint, and it names the sibling used to discover claims (frantic.get_posting). An agent can distinguish it from claim_bounty, get_claim, and judge_delivery 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?

It clearly explains which of the two `kind` values applies and what each means, which is effectively when-to-use guidance for the two modes. It also points to get_posting as the source of the claim/access state, but it gives no explicit exclusions (e.g., when to use judge_delivery or submit_delivery instead) and does not state prerequisites for the poster role.

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