ack

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait — that acknowledging under an active lease requires a valid lease token — but it never says what ack does to the message (finalize? delete? transition state?), whether it is reversible, or what state values are legal.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the prerequisite clause is tacked on efficiently. It errs toward under-specification rather than verbosity, but structurally it wastes nothing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a state-mutating queue operation with zero annotation coverage, zero parameter descriptions, and eleven sibling tools, the description omits what ack changes, valid state values, and how it relates to claim/release — and it is written in Czech while the tool and sibling names are English.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only touches lease_token (and obliquely state); message_id and error receive no meaning at all, leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

"Potvrdí stav vlastního doručení" gives a verb (confirms) and a resource (its own delivery), so the general intent is readable. However, "its own delivery state" is abstract without queue context, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like claim, release, retry, or cancel.

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 second clause states a precondition (an active lease requires the correct token), which is partial usage guidance. But there is no when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to alternatives such as release, retry, or cancel in this crowded queue toolset.

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