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

Annotations already say readOnly and non-destructive, but the description adds consequential detail the annotations cannot: a 100-message cap, a permission model that differs between self-opened and account tickets, deterministic "ticket_not_found" for wrong numbers, and no cost. It also names the equivalent REST endpoint, giving a precise mental model of the operation.

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 what is returned and when to call it; the parameter format, permissions, and error behavior follow in logical order. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the "Free; the same result as GET..." tail is optional garnish.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so concretely (status, next steps, latest 100 messages). For a single-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents ticket_id as "#N in the console and emails." The description still adds value by clarifying it must be a plain integer without the # and by stating the failure mode for any other number. That is genuine added meaning, though it partly restates 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read one support ticket") and immediately enumerates the payload: status, what happens next, and the latest 100 messages including support replies. An agent can distinguish it from everyinfra_create_ticket and everyinfra_list_requests without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit triggers: "Use it after everyinfra_create_ticket to check progress, or when the user asks whether support has answered." It also defines the access boundary — the key that opened the ticket can read it, others need "support:read" — which tells the agent when this call will fail versus succeed.

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