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

Goes well past the annotations by stating that a new ticket is created on every call (non-idempotent, consistent with idempotentHint=false), that it is free, and that there are hard quotas of 10 per hour and 30 per day per organization. That quota and duplication behavior is exactly the operational context an agent needs before firing the call.

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, both front-loaded with the highest-value facts: purpose and payload first, then the side-effect and rate-limit caveats. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description still covers side effects, quota, cost, and per-call semantics. Minor gap: it does not say what an agent should do when the hourly/daily limit is hit.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden; it does communicate the message bounds (1-4000 characters) and what the type enum values mean in practice. For the optional context object it only enumerates field names (request_id, korzy_id, longitude, latitude, endpoint) without explaining what identifiers to supply, which adds little beyond the schema's own names.

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?

Names a specific action and resource ('File a ticket with the Korzy team') and enumerates the exact ticket kinds (feature request, data issue, bug). This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools ask, enrich, lookup, get_record, and list_fields, which are retrieval/enrichment oriented.

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?

Explicitly constrains when to call: 'send one only at the user's request', and the rate limits signal that this is a scarce, deliberate action. It does not name a concrete alternative for non-support questions (e.g., 'use ask for general questions'), so the routing guidance is strong but not fully closed.

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