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

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions confirmation prompts and token scope execution ('Asks for confirmation where the client can show a prompt; otherwise runs on the token's scope') and explicitly states it is not read-only, aligning with readOnlyHint=false. No contradiction with 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 compact yet complete, with each sentence serving a purpose: state the action, scope, alternatives, execution behavior, and read-only status. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage boundaries, mutation behavior, and authorization. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes both id and note clearly. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning; it only reinforces that the note is internal via 'Internal/operational only' but doesn't elaborate on the parameters themselves.

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 action: 'Acknowledge an incident: take ownership and halt escalation.' It identifies the specific resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly saying it is internal/operational only and does not post to the public status page, pointing to post_incident_update for customer-facing updates.

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?

Provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('does NOT post anything to the public status page') and names the alternative tool ('Use post_incident_update for customer-facing updates'). Also clarifies it's not read-only, helping agents decide between mutation and read tools.

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