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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and delivers a genuinely important trait: 'We record the signal on the admin side; there's no reply loop,' telling the agent this is fire-and-forget with no response to wait for. It does not cover auth requirements, whether the request is acted on or applied immediately, or any rate limits, which keeps it from a 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 with zero waste: purpose is front-loaded, then the no-reply-loop behavior, then the usage trigger, then the important plan-retirement caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, triggering condition, the asynchronous behavior, and a critical business caveat. Nothing an agent needs in order 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 schema already documents kind, reason, and desiredValue including the enum. The description's parenthetical merely restates the enum values already present in the schema, adding no new syntax or format detail. 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 first sentence gives a specific verb ('raise') and resource ('an org limit') and enumerates the scope (agents, workspaces, rows, or other). It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with other request-style siblings such as create_support_ticket.

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?

'Use this whenever you hit one of those caps' gives a clear triggering condition, and the retirement warning steers the agent away from offering Pro/Scale plans as an alternative fix. It stops short of naming a specific sibling tool to use instead, so it's strong context without full routing.

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