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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: only metadata/approved fields are returned, and secrets, contacts and original files are excluded. That is a useful field-level scope disclosure an agent would not get from the annotations or schema. It stops short of describing response shape or whether access failures return errors vs empty results.

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 short clauses with the scope restriction front-loaded and no filler. The grammar is slightly clipped ('Read authorised support request'), but nothing is wasted.

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?

With four undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves the agent unable to construct a correct call beyond supplying targetId. The list-style limit/offset/query params on a single-record getter are the main unresolved ambiguity.

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 compensate and it does not — limit, offset and query are never explained. Worse, a single-request 'get' keyed on targetId carrying pagination and free-text query params is ambiguous, and the description offers no clarification of how query filters results.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('support request'), so an agent knows this is a fetch operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling list_support_requests, leaving the singular-vs-list distinction for the agent to infer from the name alone.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of list_support_requests, and no mention of prerequisites beyond the vague 'authorised'. The phrase 'through the existing application' adds no actionable selection criterion.

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