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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It is a state-mutating tool, yet it says nothing about side effects (does acknowledging notify on-call responders?), idempotency (what if already acknowledged?), or permissions required.

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?

Two short sentences, verb-and-resource first, then the parameter-sourcing hint. Nothing wasted.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and the parameter source but omits the behavioral context (effects, idempotency) an agent needs to invoke it confidently.

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?

There is 1 parameter at 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add real value by explaining where dedup_key comes from (list_my_incidents()), but never explains what a dedup_key is or its format.

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 ('Mark') and resource ('an incident') plus the resulting state ('acknowledged'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like resolve_incident and describe_incident.

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 tells the agent how to source the required dedup_key via list_my_incidents(), which is genuinely useful. However it gives no guidance on when to acknowledge versus resolve, or any prerequisites/conditions for acknowledging.

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