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

Annotations only supply the generic safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false); the description adds the non-obvious interaction protocol — a first call returns CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED with summary and token, and only a second call with confirmed=true plus that token actually persists. That is essential behavior not derivable from structured fields.

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?

Two sentences: purpose first, then the confirmation handshake. No filler, fully front-loaded.

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 write tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers what an agent must know — that this is a gated two-phase write and what the first call returns. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further by linking confirmed=true and confirmation_token into a coherent gated-write workflow that the schema documents only as separate fields.

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 (creates a support ticket) and it is the only mutating tool among read-only siblings like get_faq and search_help, so it is trivially distinguishable.

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?

The description makes the trigger condition explicit ('nach ausdrücklicher Bestätigung') and describes the two-step flow, giving clear context for invocation. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling overlaps in function, so this is minor.

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