Host Acknowledgements

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the per-host limitation, the absence of an estate-wide form, and the specific acknowledgement fields returned (who, when, comment). No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second adds the key limitation and usage workflow. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 rich annotations, a fully documented 2-parameter schema, and an output schema, the description covers the essential usage condition (per host), the workflow, and what the result contains. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema already documents hostname as exact and required with upstream sources, and limit as having default 50 and maximum 500. The tool description reinforces this context but does not add significant new parameter-level meaning.

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 opening sentence states the exact object and content: 'Acknowledgement history for one host: who acknowledged a problem, when, and with what comment.' It also distinguishes itself from an estate-wide listing via 'Per host only', making the tool's scope immediately unambiguous.

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 says this tool is per-host only, explains that no estate-wide acknowledgement list exists, and gives a concrete workflow: take hosts from list_services_by_state and call this tool for each one. This clearly tells an agent when and how to use it.

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