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

With annotations carrying only a title, the description does real work: it discloses the side effects ("stored on the account and the team is notified") and the return behavior ("nothing comes back except confirmation"). It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or whether reports are user-visible afterwards, but the mutation and notification semantics are clear.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what it files and for whom, how to fill the parameters, and what happens as a result. The most decision-relevant information (the support-channel framing and the failure classes) is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating exactly what comes back (confirmation only). For a low-complexity, single-required-param mutation tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the category enum and the 10–2000 character bound, and the description largely restates them. The one genuine addition is "Pass the user's own words as `message`" — guidance to quote the user rather than paraphrase — which is useful but small.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Files a problem report with the Mashkanta-Buddy team") and then enumerates the exact failure classes it covers — wrong numbers, failed/missing dashboards, stuck uploads, bad advisor answers. That enumeration makes it distinguishable from siblings like create_upload_ticket or get_upload_status without opening any schema.

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 clear triggering contexts (a wrong number, a dashboard that failed, a stuck upload, an off advisor answer) plus a catch-all, and explicitly frames itself as "a support channel, not advice" to steer away from the advisor tools. It stops short of naming the overlapping sibling create_upload_ticket, so an agent must still guess whether a stuck upload belongs here or there.

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