acknowledge_product_purchase

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

Discloses the critical behavioral consequence (automatic refund after 3 days), which adds value beyond the schema. Doesn't cover other potential behaviors like idempotency or whether double-acking is safe, but since the description is the only source of information (no annotations), the 3-day deadline is a strong contribution to understanding the tool's lifecycle semantics.

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 crisp sentences with no redundancy. The first fronts the primary action while the second provides critical timeout behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 modest tool with 4 parameters, an output schema, and clear context signals, the description provides sufficient behavioral context (the 3-day auto-refund warning). It could be enhanced by mentioning that this typically applies to one-time product acknowledgment, but given the 100% param coverage and presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to over-explain. It's nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema), which warrants the baseline score of 3. The description itself adds nothing about parameters, but it doesn't need to since the schema handles it well.

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') and resource ('in-app product purchase'), clearly stating what the tool does. It's distinct from obvious siblings (e.g., consume_product_purchase, refund_order) though it doesn't explicitly call out the difference.

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 warning that unacknowledged purchases are refunded within 3 days implicitly communicates urgency but not direction to use alternatives. There's no explicit 'when to use vs. consume_product_purchase' guidance, which would be helpful given the sibling list contains several purchase-related lifecycle tools.

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