request_sales_assistance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-read, non-destructive action. The description adds that it creates a Jira/request_assistance ticket and that details go in 'message', which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether a ticket is actually created, whether it requires payment context, or what happens after submission). With annotations covering the basic safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose (ticket to sales department) before giving examples and a parameter hint. Every sentence earns its place, though the parenthetical '(jira/request_assistance)' is slightly cryptic and could be clearer.

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 simple ticket-creation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not clarify the relationship to sibling tools like request_cancellation, and it does not state what the response will be or whether the 'confirm' flag is mandatory for submission. These are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds context for 'message' ('describe details') and mentions cancellation/rescheduling, which maps to the message field's purpose. It does not add meaning beyond the schema for 'id', 'confirm', or 'subject', so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb ('request') and resource ('sales department ticket'), and gives concrete examples ('cancel or reschedule service and similar requests'). It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like request_cancellation or create_rhr_request, which are also request-type tools.

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 implies when to use it: for sales-department tickets involving cancellation or rescheduling. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives like request_cancellation, which appears to be a more specific cancellation flow. The guidance is adequate but leaves the boundary with sibling tools to inference.

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