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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by previewing the returned fields, which matters since no output schema exists; it does not mention pagination limits, sort order, or default result size, which are left to the schema.

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 with no waste, front-loading the resource and returned fields before the filtering note. Every clause carries information.

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 six-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential shape: what comes back and what can be filtered on. Minor gaps remain around result ordering, pagination behavior and whether closed/archived tickets are included, but nothing blocks a correct call.

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 83%, so parameters are largely self-documenting and baseline is 3. The description's 'filter by customer, project or assignee' maps onto customer_id, project_ids and assignee_ids but adds no syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already states, and it never mentions customer_type or the paging parameters.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('support tickets') and an explicit enumeration of the fields returned (subject, status, assignee, customer, project, last message time). No sibling tool covers tickets, and the resource naming cleanly separates it from list_deals, list_invoices, list_projects, etc.

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?

'Filter by customer, project or assignee' implies when this tool is the right choice (narrowing a ticket set), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for, say, fetching a single ticket or listing all tickets unfiltered. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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