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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds workflow context beyond annotations: Tango staff answer asynchronously, and the reply appears via list_support_requests. It omits explicit return format or permission requirements, but provides useful process transparency.

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?

Three tight sentences plus a reference URL, front-loading purpose, workflow, and the critical do-not-use rule. Every sentence earns its place without repetition or filler.

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 4-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers selection criteria, exclusions, and where the reply will appear. It stops short of stating what immediate response the tool returns, but an agent knows how to follow up via list_support_requests.

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 most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail; it does not clarify the category enum values or the nested context object. Baseline 3 applies because the structured data carries the semantic load.

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 ('Open a Tango support ticket') and distinguishes it from siblings by naming create_task for client work and list_support_requests for replies. An agent can select this tool without opening another 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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('when you are blocked by Tango itself' with concrete examples) and when not to use it ('Do NOT use this for client work — that belongs in create_task'). It names the alternative, leaving nothing to inference.

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