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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial extra context: requires tickets:read, no state changes/acknowledgments/notifications/provider calls, rank can shift between live pages, total_flagged/truncated disclose partial coverage, and the ranking rule.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and dense but largely load-bearing sentences; each clause adds a behavioral fact an agent needs. It is a wall of text with no line breaks, which slightly hurts scanability, but waste is minimal.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still enumerates the returned fields (reasons, clock evidence, thresholds/revision, approximation flags, unmet prerequisites, suggested actions) plus next_offset/has_more. Complete for a read-only listing tool.

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 0% (no param descriptions), so the description carries the full burden and does so: limit 1-500 (default 100), offset 0-2147483647 (default 0), and the reason filter's pre-limit behavior including the missed_due_date local-day semantics. This fully compensates for the documentation gap.

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?

"Read the same ranked Needs attention queue as the browser and REST" gives a specific verb (read) and resource (the ranked attention queue), and distinguishes it from adjacent siblings like list_reviewed_attention and get_ticket_attention_review. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

Provides usage context – ordinary attention covers open active owned tickets, while integration recovery also includes retained risks on terminal/archived/deleted-source work – and explains pagination continuation (next_offset, refresh at offset 0). It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling like get_ticket_attention_resolution.

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