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

Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those flags: it explicitly states the snapshot does not authorize completion or changes to tickets, scenarios, evidence, or validation-attempt budgets. It also discloses authentication requirements (tickets:read; tickets:write also permits reading) and clarifies the read-only diagnostic nature.

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?

The description is four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, output shape, error semantics, and side-effect/auth boundary. It is front-loaded with the core action and scoping constraint, and there is no redundant 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?

Given the simple one-parameter input, an existing output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the output contract, the expected error interpretation, side-effect limitations, and authentication requirements. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining ticket_id, but it never explicitly maps the parameter to its meaning. The phrase 'owned ticket' implies the ticket_id refers to an owned ticket, and the schema provides UUID validation, but a direct statement such as 'ticket_id identifies the owned ticket to check' would make the parameter semantics unambiguous. The description partially compensates through context but not fully.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Explain why'), a resource ('an owned ticket'), and a clear non-obvious distinction: it uses the same readiness check as the browser. It also differentiates from generic ticket tools by specifying the return contract: gated, ready, and the complete bounded blocker list with code, reference_id, and message.

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 clearly identifies when to use the tool: to explain why an owned ticket is not ready to close. It also provides critical interpretive guidance by noting that an unready ticket is a successful diagnostic, not a tool failure. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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