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

Annotations only declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world; the description adds substantial context beyond them: the cap of 3 results, the presence of source and checked_on fields, the issued ticket, redaction behavior, and that input is retained to improve the Field Guide. Those retention and redaction notes are exactly the kind of behavioral facts an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the return value and shape, then the argument, then privacy, then examples — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is a dense single paragraph with long clauses, so it is slightly harder to scan than it needs to be, but every sentence carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by sketching the response (ticket plus up to 3 cards) and giving a literal example. Combined with the retention/redaction warning, an agent has enough to call it correctly; the only residual confusion is the 2000 vs 20000 character limit mismatch.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: what counts as a valid value (exact error message or one-line description), the 2000-character intent, and the privacy consequence of what is pasted. Minor flaw: it says 'at most 2000 characters' while the schema's maxLength is 20000, which could mislead on the true limit.

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 ('Returns up to 3 checked field notes that match an error text') and enumerates the three card categories it can return (pitfall cards, deprecated models/API versions, non-browser login routes). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling report_outcome by explaining that the ticket in the response feeds it.

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 positive examples of when it applies ('insufficient_quota', 'invalid_grant', 'spawn npx ENOENT', 'my list returned 30 items, is that all?'), which is strong signal. It does not explicitly exclude cases or say when to prefer get_card or get_answer instead, so routing versus siblings is only implied.

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