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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: a hard 64 MiB cap that refuses rather than truncates, that private evidence is included, and that the embedded integrity hash confers no import or completion authority. These are non-obvious traits an agent must know before calling.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: what is exported first, then handling limits and authority caveats. Sentences are information-rich; the authority/hash caveat is slightly verbose but earns its place for a security-sensitive export.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the payload contents, size limit, privacy constraint, and authority caveat. The only gap is that it never explains the sole input parameter or the export destination/format beyond 'native JSON'.

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?

Only one parameter (ticket_id, UUID) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema names but does not explain it. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, but the identifier is self-evident from the tool context, so this lands at an adequate baseline rather than a failure.

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 (Export) plus a precise resource (the full owner-private ticket authority as canonical versioned native JSON), and enumerates the payload contents. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ticket_authority, ticket_get, and audit_export.

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 an access prerequisite (Requires tickets:read) and a handling constraint (keep the file private), which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it never states when to choose this over ticket_authority or ticket_get, nor any when-not condition.

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