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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds useful behavioral context: Tango staff answer the ticket, and the reply is retrieved via list_support_requests, implying an asynchronous flow. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, minimally sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by routing instructions. Every sentence earns its place without fluff.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers when to use it, when not to, and where the eventual reply will surface. The only minor gap is the immediate return value (e.g., whether it returns a ticket ID or merely a confirmation), but the async reply path is clearly disclosed.

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 75%, so subject, body, and context already carry meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter-level guidance, but the only uncovered property (category) has an explicit enum and default, reducing the need for explanation.

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 action ('Open a Tango support ticket') and a precise scope ('when you are blocked by Tango itself'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from create_task for client work, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening schemas.

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 trigger conditions (auth, connection, tool errors, missing capability) and an explicit exclusion: client work belongs in create_task. It also tells the agent where replies will appear (list_support_requests), completing the usage loop.

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