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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: a teammate follows up by text or email using account contact details, and there is a per-account daily rate limit. The annotations cover the safety profile (write, idempotent, non-destructive), so the remaining burden was rate limits and outcome, both addressed.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the outcome, then usage, then the confirmation precondition, then the rate limit. No sentence is redundant.

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?

With no output schema and an open-world write, the description still makes the outcome predictable (human follow-up by text/email) and flags the confirmed and rate-limit constraints. Only the association of listing_id/order_number to a ticket is left unaddressed.

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 50%. The description does add meaning for 'confirmed' by stating it must be true to proceed, and implies that repeat calls are limited. However, it says nothing about how listing_id or order_number should be supplied, leaving those two undocumented in both places.

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 ('hand a problem to the Commonplace support team') and clarifies the human follow-up channel. It distinguishes itself from the sibling support_search_help by scoping to 'things no tool can do,' so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a 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 concrete when-to-use examples (order changes, pickup problems, payout questions, disputes) and an implicit exclusion ('things no tool can do'). It does not explicitly name support_search_help as the alternative for self-serve help, which is the one missing routing cue.

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