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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds useful context: inbox reads always return in full regardless, and only ack clears the recurring flag. It also surfaces the SIGN requirement, a real auth/format obligation not captured in 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?

Front-loads the action and its purpose in the first clause, then uses a parenthetical for the mechanism, ending with the SIGN obligation. Dense but every clause earns its place; no padding.

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 single-parameter, low-complexity, idempotent state-clear with no output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies the missing behavioral trigger (the recurring inbox flag) and the auth note, leaving little an agent needs unstated.

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?

Only one parameter (agent_id) at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for the parameter, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Acknowledge) and resource (standing orders) and names the concrete effect (clearing the unacked-orders nudge). It is clearly distinguishable from generic reads, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ack_coordination.

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?

Explains when to use it: when each inbox read is carrying an `unacked_standing_orders` section and you want to suppress that nudge. Clear triggering context, but no exclusions or explicit routing against alternatives like ack_coordination.

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