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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the default filter to unresolved tickets when stage is omitted, newest-first ordering, and a `count` in the response.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then return fields, then alternatives. The long return-field sentence is dense but earns its place since no output schema exists; overall there is minimal waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields and ordering, and it clarifies the default scoping behavior. Combined with the safety annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100% and the two enum parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the omit-stage-means-unresolved rule but adds little beyond what the schema already states for limit, stage, and priority, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('List support tickets') and defines exactly what a ticket is: an inbox conversation turned into one via create_ticket. This lets an agent distinguish it from list_conversations, which is named explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing: 'Without `stage` it returns only the tickets not yet resolved; for all conversations, ticket or not, use list_conversations.' It also points to update_conversation for stage/priority/assignee changes, covering the adjacent mutation path.

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