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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: idempotency semantics, the 409 failure mode when a lapse ran past grace, the state transition where ack no longer restores orchestrator status after demotion, and the full auth/transport signing requirements. This is rich behavioral disclosure an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

It is front-loaded with purpose, but the single dense paragraph mixes operation semantics, auth mechanics, and transport minutiae with ALL-CAPS labels and parentheticals. The transport paragraph in particular is long relative to its selection value.

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 gated audit/acknowledgement tool with no output schema, the description covers the important behaviors — idempotency, failure code, state effect, and signing requirements — but the unexplained parameters leave a gap an agent must resolve before calling.

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 0% and there are two required parameters. The description never explains what request_id refers to (the notice id?) and only implies agent_id via the X-Agent-Id signing header. It does not compensate for the documentation gap in the schema.

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 states a concrete verb and resource — acknowledge a coordination-required notice (coordination-gate.ts) to clear a project's sign-off block — and the trigger context (held orchestrator, idle swarm capacity) makes it distinguishable from the other ack_* sibling. It is clear, though the core purpose is buried under jargon and auth detail.

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 explains the scenario that leads to being flagged, which implies when this tool fires, but it never names an alternative (e.g. ack_standing_orders) or states when NOT to use it. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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