Search Zendesk developer docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful process detail beyond that: URL-slug ranking from a sitemap, live fetching of top pages, and deprecation badge surfacing – genuinely useful behavioral context.

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 tight sentences: what it searches, how it ranks/fetches, and how to phrase the query. Front-loaded with purpose and zero filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description discloses what results contain (title, snippet, deprecation badges), and it explains the fetch_pages tradeoff. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 75% and documents section, fetch_pages, and max_results. The description complements this by explaining the URL-slug query phrasing (the one undocumented param), which adds real meaning beyond the bare string type.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (developer.zendesk.com), and narrows scope to API reference, apps framework, and SDKs. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling search_help_center without needing to name it.

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 concrete query-construction guidance ('use endpoint/resource names as they appear in URLs') with examples ('ticket audits', 'webhooks'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use/exclusion guidance versus siblings like get_developer_page, so it stops short of a 5.

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