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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses read-only behavior, visibility limits across persons and orgs, current-org behavior, newest-first ordering, a 100-ticket cap, output fields, and an explicit exclusion of the staff queue. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 longer than average, but every sentence adds critical context: identity scoping, org scoping, order/cap, filter syntax, return fields, and an explicit non-goal. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then builds outward without redundancy or filler.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers what is returned, how results are ordered and capped, how filtering works, visibility boundaries, the relationship to create_support_ticket, and the key alternative it is not. An agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 schema already documents both `limit` and `status`. The description adds ordering behavior and a cap of 100, but most parameter-level meaning is already present in the schema. The description reinforces but does not substantially extend the structured parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool lists support tickets filed by the caller, is read-only, and explicitly differentiates itself from create_support_ticket and the separate support-staff queue. The verb, resource, and scope are all specific and actionable.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (e.g., to check on a ticket after filing it) and when not to use it (the support-staff queue is a separate, staff-only tool). It also clarifies scoping to the current org and to tickets filed by the user or their owned agents, leaving no ambiguity about fit versus alternatives.

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