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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, closed world), and the description adds non-obvious operational context: the call requires the 'support:read' account permission, that permission is off by default and must be enabled by the account owner in the console, and the call is free. This is exactly the auth/cost context annotations cannot convey.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the parameter behavior, then the permission and cost caveats. No filler, no repetition of the tool name or title.

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 return-value burden and does so ('the latest tickets', 'that ticket and its messages'). Combined with the permission and cost notes and a fully documented two-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: ticket_id is not just a filter, it switches the tool from list mode to single-ticket-with-messages mode. It does not describe the limit parameter's behavior beyond the schema's 'default 10', so it is a modest improvement over the schema rather than a full one.

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 resource (the account's support tickets) and its two operating modes: list latest tickets without ticket_id, or fetch one ticket plus its messages with it. This clearly separates it from siblings like everyinfra_ticket_create and everyinfra_ticket_reply, which act on tickets rather than reading them.

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 conditions usage on the ticket_id parameter ('without ticket_id, the latest tickets; with it, that ticket and its messages'), which tells the agent exactly when to use each mode. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., pointing to ticket_reply for responding), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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