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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds gain beyond that: the default sort direction and the exact fields returned, which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about permissions or result volume limits, but the behavioral core is disclosed.

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 compact sentences, front-loading what is listed and in what order, then the id-resolution guidance and endpoint. No filler or restatement of the 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?

For an 18-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back, default ordering, and how to source the id filters. Sort/paging knobs are fully specified in the schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 89% schema description coverage the schema does most of the work, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: that status/type/priority ids must first be obtained from sibling lookup tools. The comma-separated id convention and timestamp semantics are left to the schema, which is appropriate.

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 ('List service tickets'), the default ordering ('newest activity first'), the fields surfaced ('status, priority, client, assignees and SLA'), and the backing endpoint. An agent can distinguish this from gorelo_get_ticket and gorelo_list_ticket_comments 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to gorelo_list_ticket_statuses/types/priorities to resolve filter ids, which is real conditional guidance. It stops short of naming exclusions, e.g. that gorelo_get_ticket should be used when a single ticket is already known, so it is clear but not fully comparative.

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