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

The description adds crucial behavior beyond the annotations: ticket links are only sent to the inbox, the response never contains them, and the inbox is the proof of ownership. It also instructs the agent to tell the buyer to check email and spam. These details are not present in the annotations and materially affect how the tool should be used.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears in the first sentence, critical behavioral context in the second, and a direct agent instruction in the third. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a small two-parameter tool with a full output schema and annotations, the description covers the use case, the delivery behavior, the proof-of-ownership implication, and the follow-up instruction to the buyer. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, including the locale enum and its default. The tool description adds that the email is the address 'the buyer ordered with,' which slightly reinforces the email parameter's meaning, but it does not need to compensate for schema gaps. 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 specific verb and resource: it sends ticket links from past paid orders to the buyer's email address. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hold_tickets, release_booking, and redeem_pass. The title reinforces the purpose with 'Re-send tickets by email'.

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 description opens with 'For a buyer who lost their tickets,' which gives a clear situational trigger for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to guide an agent away from unrelated siblings.

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