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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context that the annotations cannot express, namely that this does not open a ticket nor send anything to an external support system. It does not say what happens if the reference is already linked (idempotency) or what the response contains, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the constraints; no filler. It is perhaps overly terse given the mutation semantics, but nothing 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-ish link operation with no output schema, the description covers safety and non-side-effects but says nothing about the success result, duplicate-link behavior, or failure modes (invalid supportCode, unconfigured source). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 75%, so most parameters are documented in the schema (source, ticketRef, instanceId semantics are all explained there). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and supportCode has no schema description at all — the description does not compensate for that gap. 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?

States a specific verb + resource: associates a ticket reference with the authorized store's attempt, and clarifies the scope with two negative statements (does not create a ticket, does not send external messages). It does not name or contrast any sibling tool, but the action is distinct enough from diagnose_*/generate_label/track_shipment that confusion is unlikely.

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 exclusions ('Não cria chamado nem envia mensagens externas') implicitly tell the agent this is a non-dispatch bookkeeping step, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' condition and no reference to alternatives (e.g. diagnose_label_issue). Usage must be inferred from the negatives.

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