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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the auth model (the key that opened a ticket can always read it; other tickets need 'support:read'), the failure mode ('any other number returns ticket_not_found'), the cost ('Free'), and the 100-message return cap. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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-loaded with purpose, then usage, then auth, then error behavior, then cost – a logical progression with little waste. It is dense but every clause (permission model, ticket_not_found, free) 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?

With no output schema, the description must describe return values, and it does (status, next steps, latest 100 messages). Combined with auth requirements, error behavior, and cost, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 ticket_id semantics are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only a routing note ('the ticket_id that tool returned') and the invalid-ID behavior, which is a small increment over 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?

'Read one support ticket' is a specific verb+resource, and the description enumerates exactly what comes back (status, what happens next, latest 100 messages including support replies). This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like everyinfra_create_ticket, everyinfra_ticket_reply, and everyinfra_tickets.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'after everyinfra_create_ticket to check progress, with the ticket_id that tool returned,' which routes the agent from the creation flow. It does not explicitly contrast with the list-oriented everyinfra_tickets sibling, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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