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

This is the definition's strongest contribution: it discloses that the current build does not store a request, so the agent knows the call is effectively a no-op despite the mutation-shaped annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). A detailed note on what the call returns instead, an error or a silent success, would close the remaining gap and a return value has no output schema to cover it.

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, and the availability blocker is stated immediately after the purpose. Every clause earns its place in a stub definition like this.

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 single-parameter stub, the description covers purpose and the crucial unavailability fact, which is what an agent most needs. The only missing piece is the runtime behavior of a call made anyway, an error versus a silent success, which matters because there is no output schema to explain returns.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's own description already says it is ignored until phase 2, so the tool description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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?

"Opens a support request" gives a specific verb and resource that an agent can distinguish from siblings like request_appointment or submit_referral. It stops short of naming any alternative for users who need support today, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 explicitly states the tool is not available until phase 2, which is a strong when-NOT-to-use signal and effectively prevents wasted calls. It does not point to any sibling or workaround for handling support needs in the current build, so the alternative path is left to inference.

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