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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the list is capped at the last 20 tickets, ticket_id returns the full thread, and the ID is the internal ticket ID rather than the customer-facing ticket number. Auth and response format are not covered, but the added context is meaningful.

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, front-loaded with the no-parameter list mode, then the parameterized detail mode, then the ID clarification. Every sentence earns its place and the structure matches how an agent would decide whether to pass ticket_id.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description covers the meaningful gaps: list cap, detail behavior, and internal-vs-public ID semantics. It could mention whether the 20-ticket limit is paginable, but no output schema means return-shape detail is less critical.

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% and the schema already describes ticket_id as the internal ID from the ticket list, not the ticket number. The description reinforces this with a concrete example (#12345), but adds little beyond the schema's own parameter description, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Support-Tickets auflisten/abrufen), the scope (eigene, max. letzte 20), and two distinct modes: list view or full thread via ticket_id. The dual-mode framing makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like create_support_ticket, reply_to_ticket, and close_support_ticket.

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?

Explicitly explains when to omit ticket_id (list own tickets, capped at 20) versus when to include it (retrieve the full thread of a single ticket). It also gives a crucial usage nuance about which ticket ID to pass, though it does not name alternatives or state when the tool should not be used.

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