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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so by revealing the asynchronous nature ('lodged as a ticket and a human answers it'), the output contract ('Returns a ticket ID'), and the polling pathway. It does not mention failure modes or persistence details, but the essential behavior is disclosed.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose, the second explains the mechanism, and the third states the return value and follow-up step. 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?

For a ticket-creation tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description provides the key operational context: human-mediated answering, asynchronous processing, and a ticket ID for polling. It is slightly thin on how it relates to escalate, but the schema covers parameter formats and the core workflow is clear.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context that the question parameter is what a human answers and that the response is a ticket ID, but it does not enrich individual parameter semantics 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?

Description opens with a specific verb ('Ask') and a clear resource ('commercial or procedural question'), then enumerates topic examples such as terms, conditions, eligibility, and process. It also distinguishes its output (a ticket ID for check_rfq_status) from the RFQ-focused sibling submit_rfq.

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?

It clearly states when to use this tool: when a human should answer a commercial or procedural question. It also tells the agent to poll via check_rfq_status afterward. It does not explicitly contrast with escalate or submit_rfq, so full when-not-to-use guidance is absent.

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