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

Annotations declare non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, but the description adds what they cannot: the call returns a support ticket ID, guarantees no delivery, and — critically — that each call opens a NEW request so uncertain results must not be retried. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for an irreversible open-world write.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then return semantics, then the retry warning. No filler. Slightly dense but every clause 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, yet the description still signals the ticket-ID response. Combined with the non-retry warning and the 'does not create a stream' caveat, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 0% and parameters are undocumented, so the description must compensate. 'Describe the source or website, desired content and use case' meaningfully guides what belongs in title/description, though it does not map guidance to each parameter by name.

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+resource: 'Submit a stream request to Synoptic support on behalf of the signed-in user.' It also preemptively distinguishes itself from create_stream by clarifying it 'does not create a stream', which is exactly the ambiguity a sibling-heavy catalog creates.

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 clear context (requesting a stream from support) and implicitly routes away from create_stream by stating it does not create one. It stops short of explicitly naming create_stream or request_feature as alternatives, so it lacks the full when/when-not routing of a 5.

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