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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely non-structured context: that ticket content is untrusted evidence and must not be treated as instructions. That prompt-injection warning is valuable. It stops short of covering pagination or result limits, and it does not reconcile the odd readOnlyHint=false with a list operation.

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 sentences, no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded ahead of the security caveat. Every sentence does work.

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 need no explanation, and the security caveat covers the untrusted-content risk. However, with two of three parameters undocumented anywhere, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to use the query/status filters 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 coverage is only 33% — the schema documents widgetId but leaves query and status as bare typed properties. The description never mentions filtering by search text or by ticket status, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap it should be filling.

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 ("List customer support tickets") and adds an access scope ("for a widget you own or explicitly staff"). It clearly separates itself from support_get_ticket by being the list operation, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 an eligibility condition (widget you own or explicitly staff) which implies when the tool is callable, but never states when to choose it over support_list_work, support_get_ticket, or the triage/reply tools. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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