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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation flag is already conveyed. The description goes beyond that by disclosing side effects ('opens a support conversation as them', 'then opens the support chat') and a failure mode ('Check `sent`: when it is false nothing reached the team'), which is genuinely useful. It stops short of explaining permissions, rate limits, or whether the handover is reversible.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose, then usage criteria, then mechanism, then the `sent` check. Most sentences earn their place, though the six-reason enumeration duplicates the schema's `reason` description and pads the middle of the block.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, escalation criteria, side effects, and the post-call success signal (`sent`). Remaining parameter detail is fully handled by the schema's own descriptions, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 is 3. The description restates the `reason` enum verbatim from the schema rather than adding new meaning, and says nothing about `kind`, `found`, `tried`, `chatid`, or `question` beyond the schema's own text.

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 and resource ('Hand the question to the support team with the case written') and immediately distinguishes from siblings (none of which escalate to humans), including the motivation ('so the customer never repeats themselves'). An agent can identify exactly what this tool accomplishes without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly scoped: 'Use it ONLY when a person must act', followed by an enumerated list of six qualifying reasons, plus an explicit negative case ('Never to avoid a hard question'). This is textbook when/when-not guidance with no inference required.

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