find_similar_tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral information about the algorithm being 'deterministic' and the results being only 'likely' duplicates, which clarifies that the tool is heuristic and reproducible, beyond what annotations state.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and method. It contains no unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 is simple (1 param, output schema present, annotations clear) and the description covers the main purpose. However, it omits explanation of the 'id' parameter and does not offer usage guidance, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 description mentions no parameters. The schema defines 'id' as a required string with a pattern, but the description doesn't explain that 'id' refers to the ticket to find similar ones. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate by describing the parameter's meaning.

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 a specific action: 'Find likely duplicate tickets' using a defined method ('deterministic text similarity'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tickets or get_ticket, which serve different purposes.

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 implies a use case (finding duplicate tickets) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as search_knowledge or get_ticket. The uniqueness of the duplicate-detection purpose is implied rather than stated.

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