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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a behavioral nuance: 'visible' tickets, indicating that not all tickets may be returned (likely permission-based). It also discloses the two actions (list/show) and pagination/filtering behavior, adding value beyond annotations.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and capabilities without excess. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description could be expected to mention return value shape, but it doesn't. However, the schema is comprehensive for parameters, and the description covers the two actions and their features. The absence of output details is a minor gap for a read-only tool; the core usage is clear.

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 every parameter (action, page, sort, limit, filters, ticket_number) is already documented in the schema. The description only briefly mentions filtering, sorting, and pagination, which maps to these parameters but adds no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the explanatory burden.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List or show visible support tickets' with specific capabilities (filtering, sorting, pagination). It distinguishes from ticket-write and ticket-message-read siblings by focusing on ticket viewing. The verb-resource pair is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for viewing support tickets but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., ticket-message-read for messages, ticket-write for modifications). No exclusions or conditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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