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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it requires the tickets:read permission, explains pagination limits and exclusivity, discloses that earlier unrecorded history is unknown, and states 'No writes or providers' – all valuable for correct invocation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by authentication, parameter constraints, a caveat about history, and an explicit negative statement. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: permissions, pagination, exclusivity, and the nature of the data (owner-private, immutable history). It does not elaborate on what the returned policy structure looks like, but since no output schema exists, the description could be more explicit about the return shape. Minor gap prevents a 5.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'limit 1–50 (default 20)' covers the limit parameter's range and default, and 'exclusive before_revision' clarifies the before_revision parameter's boundary semantics. It does not delve into what the effective policy objects look like, but for the given parameters it adds clear 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?

The description opens with 'Read the owner-private effective attention policy, built-in defaults, applicable statuses and immutable history,' a specific verb and resource with concrete sub-elements. It clearly distinguishes from write siblings like save_ticket_attention_policy and from related read tools (queue, review) by naming the exact object.

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 implicitly establishes read-only usage through 'Read' and 'No writes or providers', and it details constraints like 'limit 1–50 (default 20)' and 'exclusive before_revision'. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for writes, but the sibling name save_ticket_attention_policy is obvious and the policy context is clear.

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