get_tickets_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds useful context (e.g., 'human-created notes,' bulk efficiency), but it does not disclose potential error handling, behavior when both parameters are provided (though it says 'or both'), permission requirements, or how invalid IDs are handled. The output schema covers return shape, so no credit needed there, but behavioral depth is limited.

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 three sentences, starts with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, specifics, and efficiency comparison. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two optional params, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and how to invoke it. It lacks edge-case details (e.g., empty parameter lists, mixed validity), but for a bulk retrieval tool this is acceptable. It is nearly complete, earning a 4.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions and examples for task_ids and task_numbers, with 100% coverage. The description adds relational meaning by stating these are alternative or combinable inputs ('either... or both'), which is not explicitly in the schema. This goes beyond baseline, so a 4 is warranted.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get notes for multiple tickets in bulk.' It specifies the resource (tickets' notes) and the verb (get), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_ticket_details by focusing on notes-only and bulk retrieval. The mention of 'human-created notes' adds specificity.

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 description explicitly says 'This is more efficient than calling get_ticket_details multiple times when you only need the notes,' providing an alternative and a clear when-to-use condition. It also explains how to supply input: 'You can provide either task IDs, ticket numbers, or both,' offering practical guidance.

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