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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context. 'The team replies by email' is genuinely useful — it signals the operation is asynchronous and produces no in-band result — but nothing is said about auth requirements, whether attachments must already be uploaded, or what happens on failure.

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?

One compact sentence with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is arguably too sparse to structure expectations for a five-parameter write, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum say what the agent gets back and how the ticket is identified afterward. 'The team replies by email' covers part of that, but the relation to list_support_tickets and the meaning of the organizationId approval requirement are left to the schema.

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 80%, so the schema already explains body, subject, type, attachments and the 'Approved workspace id only' constraint on organizationId. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Send a support request' tells the agent exactly what is created. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_support_tickets, nor does it say the ticket is scoped to a workspace/organization.

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?

There is no guidance on when to file a ticket versus using another channel, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. approved organizationId), and no hint about which of the four `type` values is appropriate for a given situation.

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