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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is structured. The description adds genuine context beyond that: a strictly sanitized diagnostic snapshot is attached automatically, the submission is private and internal only, and the user must be signed in. It stops short of noting rate limiting or that a submitted report cannot be withdrawn or edited, which the schema's SUPPORT_REPORT_RATE_LIMITED code hints exists.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The usage trigger and the privacy/no-side-effects constraints are front-loaded, and every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 and annotations relieve the description of return-value and safety detail, and it covers the privacy and diagnostic-snapshot behavior well. But with 9 parameters at 11% schema description coverage, an agent still lacks guidance on how to populate the majority of required and optional fields, which is a meaningful completeness gap for a data-collection tool.

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 only 11% — only idempotencyKey is documented. The description mentions issue kinds that correspond to the category enum, but it says nothing about affectedArea, the summary-vs-description split, attemptedTool, reproductionSteps, expectedBehavior, or observedPublicErrorCode. For a 9-parameter submission tool, the description leaves most field semantics to the bare types and enums.

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: it privately creates an internal ComingUp support ticket for a support issue. It also explicitly scopes the kinds of issues covered (bug, connection problem, unexpected behavior, data problem, feature request, other), which maps directly onto the category enum, so an agent can immediately distinguish this from sibling tools like get_my_support_reports.

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 an explicit trigger condition ("Use this after reasonable troubleshooting when the signed-in user asks to privately submit...") and explicit exclusions ("does not send email, create a public issue, or contact a third party"). The agent knows both when to call it and what alternative paths it is not.

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