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

Goes well beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by spelling out idempotency receipt semantics, the tickets:write prerequisite, and an explicit non-effects list (never changes tickets, queue membership, clocks, policy, reviews, follow-ups or action authority) plus the 'newer review starts unresolved' state transition and no-provider/no-notification behavior.

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 primary action, then prerequisites, retry semantics, and non-effects in tight sentences. Dense but every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 an 8-required-param mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers auth, idempotency, conflict behavior, side-effect boundaries, and hints at the receipt return. Only minor gaps remain (precise concurrency-parameter semantics).

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 0% across 8 required params, so the description must compensate. It maps the key fields: required explanation, latest review ID and revision, resolution revision, fresh assessment digest, idempotency key, and the record/withdraw disposition. It adds real semantic meaning but does not explain every parameter's expected-value semantics (e.g. revision concurrency details).

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 pair (record or withdraw) plus the exact resource (owner resolution) and the key inputs it needs. An agent can immediately distinguish it from get_ticket_attention_resolution and save_ticket_attention_review.

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 context: requires tickets:write, use a stable idempotency key, exact retries return the original receipt, conflicts require fresh inspection. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g. save_ticket_attention_review) or state when not to use this tool.

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