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

The annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, and the description adds substantial behavioral nuance beyond those annotations: satisfied semantics, active/removed_at/removed_by_actor fields, and the rule that removed edges are omitted unless include_removed is true while never gating completion. It even clarifies removed edges remain readable as history, which is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure agents need.

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?

Three sentences with no filler, front-loaded purpose first and then focused behavior details. Every sentence adds information an agent needs, especially the include_removed and non-gating behavior.

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 simple read-only list operation with two parameters, readOnly/idempotent annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers edge field semantics and optional-parameter behavior; only pagination and error conditions are absent, but they are not essential for a tool this small.

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%, so the description must compensate for schema brevity. The description explains include_removed meaningfully: removed edges are omitted unless true, and it clarifies what those removed edges mean semantically. ticket_id is less directly addressed, but the phrase 'owned ticket' plus the schema's required uuid field is enough given the simplicity of the tool.

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 and resource: 'List the prerequisites an owned ticket waits on' clearly identifies the operation and differentiates it from ticket_dependency_add, ticket_dependency_remove, and broader ticket_list tools. The phrase 'Read-only' reinforces the scope and prevents confusion with mutation siblings.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is useful: listing prerequisites and inspecting removed-edge history. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use alternatives, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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