search_tickets

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Search' and lists filter options; it does not mention whether filters combine with AND/OR, what the default behavior is when no filters are given, whether results are paginated or ordered, or what the response structure looks like. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly confirmed.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence is informative, with no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to explain return behavior and edge cases. It covers the core search functionality and all parameters, but omits details such as whether an empty filter list returns all tickets, how filters combine, response format (list vs objects), and any pagination/limits. These are notable gaps for autonomous execution.

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 compensates by fully documenting all four parameters in the Args section. It explains that keyword searches subject/description/customer name, customer_email matches exactly, and provides the accepted value sets for status and priority, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 'Search customer support tickets.', which clearly states the action (search) and resource (tickets). The subsequent list of search dimensions (keyword, customer_email, status, priority) further clarifies its scope and differentiates it from the sibling create/get/update tools.

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 'You can search using a keyword, customer email, ticket status, or ticket priority.', giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with get_ticket for single-ticket retrieval or mention exclusions, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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