Customers linked to a ticket

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true) already indicate the tool performs a read operation. The description reinforces this with 'reverse lookup' and does not add significant new behavioral details beyond the relationship direction. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose in few words, though it could be slightly expanded to include parameter guidance without losing conciseness.

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 lookup tool with 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the function. However, it lacks details on the output format (list of companies) and any potential limitations like pagination. The absence of parameter descriptions also reduces completeness.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. However, the description provides no details about the 'project' and 'ticket' parameters, such as format, example values, or constraints. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description misses an opportunity to add value.

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 this is a reverse lookup to find CRM companies linked to a board ticket. It uses specific verbs ('surfaces') and resource ('ticket↔customer relationship'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_companies or get_company.

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 phrase 'Reverse lookup' implies the tool is used when you have a ticket and need to find related customers. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like link_customer_ticket, but the context is clear enough.

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