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

Exceeds what annotations provide: annotations only say readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, while the description discloses that no provider request or external write occurs, that explicit integrations:write and tickets:write scopes are required, that an expected export hash is returned, and when the preview expires. These are exactly the traits an agent needs beyond structured hints.

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 the verb and scope, and every clause adds information (what is previewed, destination rule, return value, auth needs, staleness). The opening sentence is dense with a four-item list, but nothing is filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return value (expected export hash) and its consumability, plus auth requirements and refresh conditions. Nothing material is missing for a read-only preview 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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does for the most ambiguous one: destination is a Jira project key or Linear team key and is required only for an unlinked ticket. provider values (Jira/Linear) are named in prose, but ticket_id is never characterized beyond the 'owned ticket' implication.

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 (preview) and resource (owned ticket export content) and enumerates exactly what is previewed: content, destination, correlation marker, status mapping. It is plainly distinguishable from the sibling export_ticket_to_provider because it explicitly says 'no provider request or external write.'

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 clear conditions: supply destination for an unlinked ticket, and review the preview before export, with a stated staleness rule (changed ticket or provider credential needs a fresh preview). It refers to the export step generically rather than naming the sibling tool, so the routing is clear but not explicit.

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