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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the self-scoped ('their own') access boundary, which is useful beyond the annotations, but says nothing about result ordering, page size behavior, or what the returned report bundles contain.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the conditional trigger comes first and the covered content list follows. It is slightly list-heavy but every clause identifies content the tool returns.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the annotation set is rich. The remaining gap is significant: for a four-parameter, zero-coverage schema the description should tell the agent how to page and filter, and it does not.

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 0% for four parameters (limit, cursor, status, reportRef), so the description carries the full burden — yet it never mentions pagination, the default/max of 10, the status filter, or that reportRef pins a single report. Only the vague notions of 'ticket status' and 'recent' hint at two of the four 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?

States a specific verb ('review') and a specific resource scope ('their own recent ComingUp support reports'), plus the sub-content covered (ticket status, public responses, issue-pattern/incident status). It is distinguishable from the write-side sibling submit_support_report, though the sibling is not 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?

The 'Use this when the signed-in user wants to...' framing gives a clear triggering condition and implicitly bounds it to the authenticated user's own data. It does not name alternatives or state exclusions (e.g., what to use for reports belonging to other users, or for submitting a report).

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