List open tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it specifies the state filter ('open'), the sort order ('worst priority first'), and the optional cap. It doesn't describe return format or pagination, but for a simple list-with-options tool, this is sufficient additional disclosure.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List support tickets currently in the open state') and tucks optional behaviors at the end. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a tool with two optional parameters, a readOnlyHint annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the essential 'what' (list open tickets), the sort order, and the optional filters. The schema fills in parameter details. It doesn't describe return fields, but the 'List' verb makes the array return type obvious, and no further behavior is needed for effective use.

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%, and both parameters (limit, priority) have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description only paraphrases the filter/cap options and adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter 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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clearly defined resource 'support tickets' and explicitly scopes to the 'open' state, plus states a sort order ('worst priority first'). This distinguishes it from siblings like update_ticket_status (which mutates) and get_customer (which fetches a single customer).

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: to list open support tickets, with optional priority filtering and limit. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the sibling tool names make the read-only vs mutation distinction obvious. The context is clear with no misleading exclusions.

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