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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the state machine (awaiting_review vs awaiting_approval) and the fallback routing when no reviewer agent exists. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., what happens if no plan is drafted) or permission requirements, so not a full 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its state effect, followed by the routing exception, the prerequisite, and the note's role. No filler or repetition.

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 state-mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the observable effect on the ticket and the branch conditions, which is the critical information. It stops short of describing the return payload or error behavior, a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's line about the note ('frames what you want the reviewer to focus on') largely restates the schema text rather than adding new semantics.

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 ('Ask a colleague to review the ticket's drafted plan') and immediately names the resulting state change ('moves the ticket to awaiting_review'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like ticket_draft_plan (creates the plan) and ticket_submit_review.

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 states the precondition ('Requires a drafted plan (ticket_draft_plan first)') and explains the routing branch on desks without a reviewer agent. It does not, however, contrast against the nearest sibling ticket_submit_review, leaving the agent to infer which review path applies.

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