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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, states it 'never creates or modifies anything,' discloses sort order, the 50/20 limit cap, and enumerates the lightweight summary fields plus the total match count. It omits pagination/continuation behavior beyond the limit cap, which is the main remaining gap.

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 read-only guarantee and scope, then packs usage, filters, return shape, and the negative guarantee into tightly ordered clauses with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully specifies the return payload (id, subject, status, priority, lastMessageAt, customer, assignee, tenant plus total match count) and the safety profile in lieu of annotations. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 schema already documents all five parameters including enums, defaults, and format. The description largely reiterates the filters and the limit cap rather than adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with scope: 'list support tickets in the caller's tenant, sorted by most recent message first.' Coupled with the sibling set (search_tickets, get_ticket_context), an agent can tell this is the discovery/list tool rather than a single-ticket fetch or a keyword search.

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 says 'Reach for this to discover ticket ids, triage the queue, or poll for activity before acting on a specific ticket,' giving clear use contexts. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (search_tickets, get_ticket_context) or stating when NOT to use it, so it is strong but not routing-complete.

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