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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing scope and redaction behavior: only metadata/approved fields are returned, and secrets, contacts and original files are excluded — useful for an agent deciding whether this tool can answer its question. It does not address pagination or result caps, which keeps it off 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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the read action and the data-scope constraint are both front-loaded so the agent gets the essential facts immediately.

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?

Safety behavior is well covered by annotations and the field-redaction note is a solid addition, but with no output schema and zero parameter documentation the agent still lacks the filtering semantics and paging model it needs to call this correctly and interpret the result set.

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% for all three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to compensate. It says nothing about what 'query' matches against (subject? requester? body?), how limit/offset behave, or that offset caps at 25000 — all of which materially affect correct invocation.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('authorised support requests'), which is unambiguous on its own. However it never distinguishes this collection-list operation from the sibling get_support_request (singular detail fetch), and it omits any hint of listing/paging scope, so the agent must infer the distinction 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get_support_request, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implicit guidance is the word 'authorised', which hints at permission-gated results but does not help an agent choose between this and its singular sibling.

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