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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds real behavior: a human reads every submission, the title/details must be read back and agreed before sending, and credentials must never be included. The read-back rule is especially valuable given idempotentHint=false, where a duplicate send is costly.

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?

One dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the purpose and then the trigger conditions. It is long for a three-field tool, but nearly every clause carries operational weight (triggers, read-back, content requirements, secret exclusion), so little is wasted.

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 low-complexity, no-output-schema submission tool, the description covers purpose, triggers, required content and a safety constraint. The only gap is what happens after sending (confirmation, ticket ID, expected response time), which an agent would otherwise have to discover.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema's bare length limits by specifying what details should contain: what the user was doing, what they expected, what happened, and the source and record IDs involved. Only 'kind' and 'title' get no extra guidance beyond their schema descriptions.

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 ('Send TradieBridge's builders an idea or a problem') and immediately characterizes the artifact as being in the user's own words. An agent can tell this apart from ask_question or the generic call_write_operation siblings without opening any schema.

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 three concrete triggering conditions: a capability the product lacks, a question that cannot be answered from the copy, and something that looks wrong. The second condition implicitly routes away from ask_question, and the confirmation instruction ('send only once they agree') constrains when the call may actually fire.

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