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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the non-obvious cost signal (FREE) and the binding requirement to a prior request_id, which affects whether the call can succeed at all. It does not say what happens after submission (confirmation, ticket ID, side effects), so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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 short clauses with no filler; the cost hook and purpose are front-loaded, followed by the binding requirement and then the exclusion. Every sentence earns its place.

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 3-required-param write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the prerequisite, the free-cost signal, and the boundary against claims. The only gap is post-submission behavior, which is minor given the annotations and complete schema.

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 100%, including the category enum values and the 500-char limit, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description only reinforces that request_id comes from the X-Request-Id header and repeats the billing exclusion, adding little beyond the schema baseline.

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: report integration/docs/site issues for a prior call. It also names the thing it is not (paid delivery disputes go to /v1/claims), so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema, and it is unambiguous against the read-only data-retrieval 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?

Gives the precondition for use (requires a request_id from a prior call's X-Request-Id) and an explicit exclusion with a named alternative ('Paid delivery disputes use /v1/claims, not this tool'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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