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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: passing request_id lets a human join directly to the request's full trace instead of reproducing blind, revealing human triage happens downstream. It doesn't mention that repeated calls create duplicate tickets (relevant given non-idempotent), so it stops short of a 5.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose and the sibling alternative before parameter provenance. The parentheticals are dense but each earns its place, advancing routing and parameter sourcing rather than restating the name.

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 17-parameter, non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation title, the description covers routing, the key integration fields, and the human follow-up path. It is nearly complete; it could note duplicate-creation behavior and priority implications but nothing essential to calling it correctly 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 coverage is 71%, so the schema documents most fields; the description adds cross-tool provenance that the schema lacks — request_id comes from the error response or a prior list_logs/get_request_trace call, and attachment_ids accepts file records from upload_file. That materially helps correct invocation, though several params (actual_behavior, steps_to_reproduce, environment, client_name) get no added meaning.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('File a bug report, question, incident, or billing/access issue against the AALY platform') and enumerates the ticket kinds. It also names the sibling it is not (file_feature_request) and the retrieval siblings it complements (get_request_trace, list_logs). An agent can distinguish it from siblings 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use ('especially when you hit an actual error, not just a documented capability gap') and a clear alternative with its selecting condition ('for a missing capability, use file_feature_request instead'). This is textbook when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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