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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond that: newest-first ordering, that internal replies are excluded, and which attributes come back. It doesn't mention pagination or result limits, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the scope and ordering before the site_id filter. Slightly dense enumeration of status values, but every clause carries information.

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 no-required-param list tool with no output schema, the description conveys scope, ordering, included fields, and an exclusion rule, which is close to complete. Pagination/volume behavior and what an empty result means are the only notable omissions.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including site_id's meaning. The description restates site_id's narrowing behavior but adds nothing about user_goal, and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (list), resource (support tickets), and scope (the signed-in person's tickets in this workspace), plus ordering and returned fields. An agent can immediately distinguish this read/listing tool from create_support_ticket and other write tools in the sibling list.

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 usage ('site_id narrows to tickets about one site') and establishes the personal/workspace scope, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no guidance on when to omit site_id. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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