find_tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing a non-obvious behavioral detail: the phone must be the user's profile phone, not a ticket field, so the tool resolves the user first and then lists their tickets. It does not mention result limits or pagination behavior.

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 tight paragraphs: the search keys are front-loaded in the first sentence, then the interaction rules. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the name or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed, and the zero-required-parameter schema is offset by the explicit 'at least one' rule. The remaining gaps are minor: no note on capping/pagination with max_results or behavior when no matches are found.

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%, so the description carries the burden and does so well for the four filter parameters: it explains ticket_id exclusivity, the combinability of email/subject/phone, and the special semantics of phone. max_results (default 50) is not addressed at all, which leaves one of five parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 names a specific verb (find) and resource (tickets) and enumerates the exact search keys: ticket id, requester email, subject, phone. No sibling in the list is a ticket-search tool, and the one adjacent tool (find_user) is clearly distinct, so an agent can select this without ambiguity.

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 states a hard precondition ('Provide at least one of the four') and spells out the selection rules: ticket_id is exclusive and suppresses the others, while email/subject/phone combine and are ANDed together. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over other lookup paths or what happens when nothing matches, which keeps it short of a 5.

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