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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, closed-world operation. The description adds important gating guidance about when not to submit support, but it does not explain the actual side effects or what "destructive" means for this tool.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The usage constraint and exclusion are stated compactly and clearly.

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?

The schema fully covers the two required inputs, and annotations cover safety characteristics. However, for a destructive support-submission tool, the description does not explain what submitting support actually does or what the destructive side effect is, leaving a meaningful gap.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the 1500-character limit for message. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Submit support." It clearly identifies the action as creating/support submission, though it relies on the title to clarify the full notion of a support request. No sibling tool is a support-request tool, so distinctness is adequate.

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 explicit usage conditions: only when asked or when other tools cannot resolve the issue. It also adds an exclusion: never promote it. It does not name specific alternative tools, but the when/when-not guidance is clear.

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