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

The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by clarifying that the acknowledgment is client-reported and not evidence of verification, purchase, payment, or identity. This helps the agent avoid overinterpreting the action's significance, though it doesn't detail the exact recording behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the trigger condition, and an important caveat about what the acknowledgment does not mean. The description is front-loaded and free of redundant phrasing.

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 two-parameter idempotent acknowledgment tool, the description is complete: it states the action, the sole valid trigger, the session context, and the semantic limits. No output schema is needed for this minimal operation, and annotations cover safety traits.

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%, with both attempt_id and session_token already documented. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('acknowledge'), a clear resource ('one generated package'), and a specific context ('anonymous session'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like generate_regression_examples and record_price_interest, since acknowledging receipt is a distinct action.

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 explicitly states when to call ('only after the user or client confirms receipt') and when not to call ('never call automatically'). This is strong, actionable guidance that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's trigger condition.

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