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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral context: it is a snapshot that does not authorize completion or change tickets, scenarios, evidence, or validation-attempt budgets. It also states permission requirements (tickets:read; tickets:write also permits reading) and explains the return semantics (gated, ready, and blocker list). This goes beyond what annotations provide and aligns with them.

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 three sentences, each carrying distinct value: purpose, return structure, and behavioral/permission context. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids redundancy. No wasted words.

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 fully specifies what is returned (gated, ready, complete bounded blocker list with code, reference_id, message). It also covers error semantics (unready is not failure), side effects (none), permissions, and the fact that it mirrors the browser's check. For a single-parameter read-only diagnostic tool, this is complete.

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 provides a single required parameter ticket_id with a UUID format, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds the constraint that the ticket must be 'owned,' which is not in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on other potential nuances of the parameter. Given the single, well-typed parameter, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Explain why an owned ticket is not ready to close.' It specifies the exact purpose and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ticket_get or ticket_validation_finalize by focusing on the readiness check. The reference to 'same readiness check as the browser' further grounds its specific role.

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 implies when to use it (when needing to know why a ticket is not ready to close) and clarifies that an unready ticket is a successful diagnostic, not a failure. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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