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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: find-or-creates customer by email, records first message, and explicitly states no email/notification is sent. It also mentions the return values. This is transparent but could add more about side effects (e.g., whether the ticket is immediately visible or any persistence details). Still, it's substantially informative.

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?

The description is two sentences plus a price tag, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does and returns, the second gives usage context and key exclusions. No redundancy or 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?

The tool is a mutation with no output schema, but the description covers return values, side effects, and usage context. It mentions the find-or-create behavior, records the message, and the no-notification aspect. It doesn't mention defaults like priority (though schema does) or any authentication prerequisites, but those are assumed. Overall, it's fairly complete for a create operation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema's param documentation; it reinforces that 'records the customer's first message' ties to the body parameter, but the schema already explains that. No extra clarity is provided for parameters like priority or customerName beyond what's in the schema.

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 clearly states it 'Files a new support ticket for an end customer on this tenant' and returns specific fields (ticketId, customerId, status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_issue by specifying it's for support tickets, and the verb-resource pair is unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit usage: 'Use this when an agent needs to log a new customer issue or request' and discloses what it does NOT do ('does NOT send any email or notify the customer'). However, it doesn't name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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