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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: true stamps 'nothing is missing', false clears it, and the prompts are recomputed from current inventory on each read so fixing a gap makes the prompt disappear. This aligns with readOnlyHint=false, so there is no contradiction. It could add response details, but the mutation semantics are clearly communicated.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then body semantics, then the recomputation behavior, then scope. Every sentence earns its place and none of the schema's details are redundantly repeated.

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 boolean ack tool, the description covers purpose, payload semantics, dynamic prompt behavior, and required scope. There is no output schema, so the description could have described the response shape, but that is a minor omission given how much context is already provided.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the effect of acknowledged=true/false and tying job_id to the inventory.gaps field on GET /jobs/{id}. This goes beyond the schema's parameter names and 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Record') and a precise resource ('customer's answer to the capture-gap prompts'), then clarifies what that answer does with acknowledged=true/false. This clearly separates it from related inventory tools like approve_inventory or quote_inventory.

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 clearly frames when to use the tool: to record a customer's answer to gap prompts. It also provides indirect usage guidance by explaining that fixing a gap removes the prompt without needing this call, which helps avoid unnecessary invocations. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 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.