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

Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write; the description goes well past that by disclosing the state transition to needs_decision, the human notification to the owner, and the required restart via start_ticket. These are workflow consequences an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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 sentences, no filler, and the state-change consequence is front-loaded before the resume instruction. Nothing could be removed without losing either the precondition or the exit path.

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 two-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description covers precondition, side effects, and the follow-up call, which is essentially everything needed to invoke it correctly. It does not say what the immediate response looks like or how repeat calls behave, a minor gap given the non-idempotent hint.

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 both parameters are already documented (ticket key format, question content and options). The description adds only the framing that the ticket must be one the caller is working on, which is marginal beyond the schema – baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a concrete effect: it takes the caller's in-progress ticket, moves it to the needs_decision state, and alerts the owner. That is a specific verb-plus-resource action, and naming start_ticket as the resume path separates this tool from the ticket-flow siblings without the reader needing 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?

The precondition is explicit ('your in-progress ticket needs a person to decide something') and the follow-up is explicit ('Resume with start_ticket once answered'), which tells the agent both when to enter this state and how to leave it. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it, e.g. how this differs from block_ticket or ask, so it lands just below a 5.

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