dsb_list_tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds useful context that the data comes from a configured local source, but it does not disclose ordering, result limits, or what happens when dates exclude everything. An output schema exists, so omitting return-value detail is acceptable.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with no filler; the source and the date-filter qualifier come in the right order. It is efficient, though its terseness edges toward under-specification rather than crispness.

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 covers the idealised core of the tool: it discovers tickets from a configured local source with optional inclusive date bounds. What remains unclear is whether the date filters apply to journey or ticket dates, which matters given the sibling journey tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and it partially does: it clarifies that the dates are optional and that the bound is inclusive, which the schema does not state. However, it says nothing about format, whether start_date and end_date must be supplied as a pair, or what happens when only one is given.

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?

Names a verb ('Discover') and a resource ('ticket references') and adds scope ('from the configured local source'), but the verb is soft and the object ('ticket references') is ambiguous against the tool name dsb_list_tickets — it is unclear whether full tickets or only IDs are returned. It offers no differentiation from siblings such as dsb_list_journeys, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (dsb_list_journeys, dsb_get_delay_evidence) to prefer for related lookups. The only implicit guidance is that journey dates are optional, which is about parameters, not tool selection.

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