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

Adds real side-effect context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: Deskpro auto-creates a person when the email is new, and triggers may send an email to the requester. It also states the tool returns the created ticket. It does not contradict destructiveHint=true, which aligns with a write operation that can create subsidiary records.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the requester identification rule is front-loaded and the endpoint reference closes it out.

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 13-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the two required inputs, requester resolution, ticketing side effects, and the return value. It leaves per-parameter detail to the thorough schema, which is appropriate.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds the person_id-vs-person_email resolution rule and the auto-creation behavior of a new email, which the schema only implies via 'used when person_id is not given'.

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 ('Open a new ticket') plus the requester resolution model (person id or email) and the requirement of a first message. An agent can distinguish it from deskpro_add_ticket_message (which adds to an existing ticket) without opening either 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?

Explains the two ways to identify the requester and clarifies that an unknown email triggers person creation. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (e.g. use deskpro_add_ticket_message for existing tickets), but the context is clear enough to select the tool correctly.

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