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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the shape of the return data (ids plus an active flag) even though no output schema exists, and cites the underlying GET endpoint; it omits pagination or ordering, which is negligible here.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource, followed by the actionable usage hint and the endpoint. No repetition or filler.

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 trivial no-argument read that returns a small reference list, the description covers what is returned (ids and active flags), the example values, and how to consume the result. 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly presents the call as requiring no input beyond the endpoint path.

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 the specific resource (ticket states of the instance) and enumerates representative values (new, open, pending reminder, pending close, closed), which is far more informative than the title. It clearly separates itself from zammad_list_ticket_priorities by naming the exact resource, though it doesn't explicitly call out that distinction.

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?

The sentence 'Use the names in zammad_update_ticket' gives explicit downstream context for why an agent would call this, routing toward the write tool. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use or naming alternative lookup tools, but for a zero-parameter enumeration tool the context is clear.

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