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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the call may atomically consume the ticket's one-time delivery and instructs the agent to save the returned body. It also notes the ticket can be redeemed only once, which is critical behavioral context not captured by annotations alone.

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?

Three dense, purposeful sentences with no filler. The key warning about consuming the ticket is front-loaded, and the sibling alternative is placed at the end. Every sentence 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?

Given the output schema exists and the single parameter is fully documented, the description covers everything an agent needs: what to pass, what to expect, the side-effect risk, and how to choose between this and get_fix. No important context is missing.

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?

The schema already covers the single parameter fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by explaining the ticket's origin (from request_fix), its one-time nature, and the need to reuse it unchanged and never publish it. This is meaningful supplementary guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a private ticket from request_fix'), and clearly enumerates the possible return values, including pending, declined, not-eligible, redeemed, or the full fix. It also differentiates itself from get_fix by naming when that sibling should be used instead.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: with a private ticket from request_fix. It also gives an alternative, 'Use get_fix when you already have a catalog id,' and warns not to create another request while this ticket is pending. This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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