Hand off to a human agent

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write, and the description's "Create a ticket" is consistent with that. It adds useful behavioural context about how the summary is consumed ("so the human does not have to reread the thread"), but does not say whether the customer is notified or what happens after the ticket is filed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the escalation trigger list. The long MUST clause is dense but every item earns its place as a routing rule; only the trailing summary instruction could be tightened slightly.

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 4-required-parameter escalation tool with no output schema, the description covers routing, required intent categories, and summary style. It leaves contactEmail semantics and any post-creation behaviour (ticket id, notification, SLA) unspecified, which is a minor but real gap.

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 only 25% (only listingId is documented in the schema). The enumerated use cases in the description map well onto the reason enum values, and the summary wording gives a length/style expectation, but contactEmail (whose address, required even when the listing is unrelated) and listingId's null case are never explained in the description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Create a ticket for the letting or sales team." That is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling tools search_listings and get_listing, which read listing data rather than escalate an inquiry to a human.

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?

It gives an explicit MUST-use list (viewing bookings, price/rent negotiation, contract or legal, complaints, personal data requests, and anything the listing record cannot answer) plus the exclusion "not answer yourself," which implicitly routes answerable questions to get_listing. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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