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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint; the description reinforces 'Read-only' and adds context the annotations lack: newest-first ordering, the fields surfaced per row (status, category, severity, related cluster), and a warning that this is a distinct ticket corpus from ticket_list. Pagination behavior is left to the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then filters, then a short disambiguation. Every clause earns its place; the parenthetical about `ankra support` and the portal page usefully grounds what the resource is.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming the returned fields and ordering, plus the filter surface. Only pagination/response-size behavior is omitted, which the schema partially covers via page/page_size.

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%, so page, page_size, query, status, and cluster_id are already documented in the schema. The description restates the filter dimensions (status, cluster, search over subject and description) without adding format or semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (organisation's support tickets with Ankra support) with scope and ordering stated up front. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the similarly named sibling by noting these are Ankra support requests, not the AI work board's tickets (ticket_list).

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?

It names the sibling it is not (ticket_list) and enumerates the filter conditions under which to narrow results (status, cluster, subject/description search). It does not, however, say when to prefer get_support_ticket for a single ticket, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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