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

Annotations already indicate a non-read, non-destructive mutation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it requires the full set of active tier ids and host permission. It does not cover failure modes or side effects, but adds meaningful info beyond annotations.

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 sentences, no wasted words. Action is front-loaded: 'Reorder the active ticket tiers' display order.' Followed by clear instructions and prerequisites.

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 simple tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and requirements. It lacks details on error cases or return value, but is sufficient for typical use.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining that event_id is required and ordered_tier_ids must include ALL active tier ids in the desired order. This adds essential semantics beyond the schema's type constraints.

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 clearly states the verb 'reorder' and the resource 'active ticket tiers' display order'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_ticket_tier, archive_ticket_tier, update_ticket_tier, and list_ticket_tiers by specifying the exact action.

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 provides clear context: requires event_id and host privileges, and instructs to pass ALL active tier ids. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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