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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: for 'access', the claim stops awaiting access and the delivery clock starts; for 'received', the delivery landed. It also notes the endpoint and that claims are listed by frantic.get_posting. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses two sentences to explain the kinds and one to point to the listing tool. It's efficient, though the endpoint URL in the description is somewhat redundant with the tool name and schema.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description covers the key context: what the two kinds mean, what happens to the claim state, and where to find claims. It doesn't explain the output/return value, but there is no output schema, so the description could have mentioned what the response contains. Still, the essential context for calling the tool correctly is present.

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 parameters. The description adds some context by explaining the two kinds and referencing where claim_id and intake_id come from (frantic.get_posting and frantic.post_bounty). However, it doesn't add much beyond the schema for status_token and operator_token, which are already described in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: the poster acknowledges a claim on a sealed bounty, with two kinds of acknowledgement (access and received). It names the specific endpoint and distinguishes the two kinds. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like frantic.judge_delivery or frantic.submit_delivery, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 explains when to use each kind: 'access' when the claimant has what the brief promised and the delivery clock starts; 'received' when the delivery landed on your side. It also mentions that claims and access state are listed by frantic.get_posting. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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