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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing the escalation workflow: parked calls execute on retry with the same idempotency_key, and the credential never reaches the agent. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent needs to plan around.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and base URL, then escalation behavior. No filler, though the URL and method enumeration make the opening slightly heavier than necessary.

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 mutating proxy with no output schema and an escalation path, the description covers the key mechanics (gating, parking, retry, credential isolation). Minor gaps remain around what facts are policy-keyed on and error surfaces, but annotations and schema carry the safety profile.

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 86%, so the schema already documents path, body, facts, intent, user_token and idempotency_key. The description reinforces idempotency_key retry semantics but adds little beyond what the schema fields already convey, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 set (create, change, pay) against a named resource (gigtickets.aqylorda.kz/api) and the mutation methods it accepts. It is clearly the write counterpart to the sibling gigtickets_read, though the description is deliberately generic about which sub-resources are touched.

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 gating context (calls count against the spend limit, unapproved payments are parked as ESCALATION_REQUIRED), which implies when calls will succeed versus be deferred. It never explicitly routes the agent to gigtickets_read for non-mutating work or states what must not be done here.

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