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

Annotations cover read-only/idempotency/destructive hints, but the description adds rate limits (3 tickets/day, 5 messages/hour), attachment limit (3 plain-text), account/OAuth requirement with fallback behavior, and that tickets are marked 'via AI'. This is rich behavioral context beyond 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 purpose and usage constraint, then packs limits, reply routing, and auth requirements into a tight paragraph. Every sentence contributes; slight density but no 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?

With output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description still supplies auth, rate limits, consent, and routing needed to invoke correctly. Nothing critical is missing for this mutation tool.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the attachment limit and enum categories but adds no new syntax, format, or defaults beyond 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?

States a specific verb 'opens' and resource 'ticket' with the JusticeLibre team, and the purpose categories (wrong data, missing source, bug, idea). It distinguishes itself from reply_ticket by describing opening, and points to get_account_item for reading replies.

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 'Use only if the user asks for it or approves it', giving a clear consent prerequisite. It does not explicitly route reply actions to reply_ticket, but it does point to get_account_item for reading replies.

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