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

Annotations declare a mutating, open-world, destructive operation; the description adds genuinely new behavior the annotations cannot convey: attachments are blocked by MCP policy and creation is gated on confirmed=true representing explicit user consent. It does not say what the response returns, but that is not its job here.

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?

Three short sentences with zero padding, and the defining constraint (text-only) plus the blocking prerequisite (confirmed=true) are front-loaded where an agent will read them first.

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 annotations covering safety profile, an output schema covering return values, and fully documented parameters, the description only needed the policy constraints and confirmation gate, which it supplies. A brief note on what happens after creation would push it higher.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema, including the semantics of confirmed. The description restates the confirmed requirement but adds no new format or content guidance for message, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Creates a text-only support ticket"), immediately separating it from read-side siblings like hgr_get_support_ticket and hgr_reply_support_ticket. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, 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?

Gives a hard prerequisite ("Requires confirmed=true", meaning the user must have explicitly confirmed the message) and a scope limit (text-only). It offers no guidance on when to choose this over hgr_reply_support_ticket or hgr_get_support_ticket.

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