issue_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (issuing a ticket) without mentioning side effects, permissions, idempotency, or response behavior. It does not go beyond the obvious creation aspect.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence in Korean that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it highly efficient.

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 description is minimal and lacks information about expected return values or post-issuance behavior, especially given there is no output schema. It also does not integrate with the sibling tool context. The schema covers parameters, but the overall description does not provide enough operational context for a complete understanding.

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 input schema includes descriptions for all six parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, leaving the schema to fully explain each field. This meets the baseline for schema-covered 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?

The description clearly states the tool issues tickets specifically for delivery delay cases (배송 지연 건에 대한 티켓을 발급합니다), using a specific verb '발급' and resource '티켓'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool recommend_coupons, which handles coupon recommendations, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 description provides a clear context (orders with delivery delays) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like recommend_coupons. It implies usage for delay scenarios but lacks explicit exclusion or comparison.

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