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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful operational context: default status is open and pending, results are newest activity first, and views have specific sort semantics such as longest-waiting-first or most-overdue-first.

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 front-loaded and dense with useful information, but it contains duplicated artifacts such as 'Free. Free.' and the awkward 'within within_minutes', making it less tight than it should be.

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 12-parameter list tool with no output schema and low schema description coverage, the description covers nearly all filtering and view semantics. It is mostly complete, though it does not discuss pagination/limit behavior or whether filters and view can be combined.

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 only 17%, so the description carries most of the semantic burden. It explains most parameters in natural language: filters, query text, custom fields, CRM contact/company, since time, status default, and every view enum value, with only the limit parameter left mostly to the schema constraints.

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 establishes that this retrieves tickets, with filtering by status, priority, requester, tag, fields, query text, CRM contact/company, or since time. It also distinguishes the view-based queue mode from ordinary filtering, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like ticket_get or ticket_report.

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 explains the main usage pattern well: use filters for ticket lists, or use a view for a work queue, and it defines what each view means. It does not state when not to use this tool versus ticket_get, ticket_report, or other nearby siblings.

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