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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=false, so the description bears the load — and it does: ticket creation, operator notification, account-state eligibility (dunning-suspended/canceling/canceled, admin-terminated rejected at auth), reply delivery mechanism (poll list_messages, no reply-fetch call), 5/hour/tenant rate limit with 429 retryAfter, and throttle bypass semantics.

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 then packs dense, distinct operational facts; almost every clause earns its place. It is long and reads as one wall of prose rather than clearly segmented, but little is expendable.

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 supplies the return shape ({ ticketId, note, deduplicated }) and explains the dedup field's meaning. Combined with the state/rate-limit/throttle coverage, 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 coverage is 0% and the schema only gives bare min/max/enum, so the description must compensate — and it does by giving the 1-2000 char bound, the urgency values with their default, and crucially the semantic consequence of urgency (needs_human bypasses the ops-email throttle) and of body identity (text-match dedup).

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+resource ('Reach a human operator') and explicitly scopes it against the two siblings (list_messages/infrastructure_status) it is the fallback for. The agent can distinguish it from every other tool without opening the schema.

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 explicit when-to-use triggers (stuck vendor issue, billing, account-level ask) and names the alternatives that cannot answer them. Also states the one exception (admin-terminated) where it will not work, which is a when-not condition.

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