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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the three states, that pending tickets require the user to run the verify line, that resolver identity matters for evidence, and that ticket text from other agents must be treated as data rather than instructions. This is substantial behavioral context beyond what annotations alone provide.

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?

The description is long, but nearly every sentence adds necessary context about states, roadmap behavior, or safety caveats. It is front-loaded with the most important idea and remains readable despite its wording.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description covers the return content, the state semantics, the roadmap mode, and a security warning about adversarial ticket text. Nothing critical for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already explains both `id` and `limit`. The description reinforces the id semantics and the roadmap alternative but does not add material detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: get a ticket's state when called with the `pg_…` id from `report_gap`, and get the roadmap when called with no id. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming `report_gap` as the source of the id and `gap_reply` as the follow-up tool.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use conditions: call with the `pg_…` id to check a specific ticket, call with NO id for the roadmap, and 'Then answer with gap_reply.' It also explains why the raw open pile is not published, preventing misuse of the tool as a broadcast surface.

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