finding_acks_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description reinforces this with 'Never writes to the ledger' and adds specifics about the returned data (aggregate counts by various dimensions, bounded reverse-chronological list). This adds value beyond the 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?

The description is concise, with no extraneous information. Key points are front-loaded: read-only, what it returns, and filter options. One could argue for a slightly more structured format, but it is efficient.

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?

Given there is an output schema (presumably defining return structure), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the purpose, filters, and behavior (bounded list, read-only). With 9 optional parameters, the description adequately informs an agent about tool usage.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It lists filterable fields (category, subjectKind, filePath, status, ISO time window) but does not provide detailed explanations for each parameter or their default behavior. This partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions but is not exhaustive.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('finding_acks ledger') and the action ('read-only inspection returning aggregate counts and a bounded list of acks'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that write to the ledger, such as 'finding_ack' and 'finding_ack_batch'.

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 provides usage context ('to see what operators have suppressed and which categories carry the most weight') and explicitly states the tool does not write. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though it is clear it is for reading only.

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