get_tickets_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that results are sorted newest-first and that no search ranking/filtering is applied, which adds behavioral context beyond the schema. It doesn't mention permission requirements or side effects, but the read-only nature is implied and the disclosed traits are useful.

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds value: purpose, usage context, and result behavior. No wasted words.

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 is sufficient for a simple list tool: it explains what it does, when to use it, and result ordering. An output schema exists for return structure. It doesn't cover edge cases or error handling, but those are not critical here. Slightly more detail about pagination behavior could make it a 5.

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% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only refers to 'companies' generically, which aligns with company_ids but doesn't enhance semantic understanding.

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-object phrase 'Get all tickets assigned to one or more companies' and clarifies it retrieves formally assigned tickets in Autotask. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it's the follow-up to search_companies and that no search ranking/filtering is applied.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: 'Use this after finding companies with search_companies.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, but it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The context is clear, yet exclusions are absent.

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