list_tickets

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-style list operation, but does not describe pagination behavior, response shape, ordering, or any side effects. It adds little beyond what the tool name already suggests.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every phrase earns its place, making the description easy to consume quickly.

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 simple list tool with fully documented parameters, the core call is understandable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the return shape implied and does not help an agent choose between list_tickets, get_ticket, and get_ticket_counts.

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%, so the schema already documents status, limitnum, and limitstart. The description reinforces the intended use of 'status' for filtering, but provides no additional semantic detail for the pagination parameters.

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') and resource ('support tickets'), and adds a useful qualifier ('Filter by status'). This clearly identifies the core operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from ticket-related siblings like get_ticket or get_ticket_counts.

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?

'Filter by status' provides a concrete usage context and implies this is the tool for retrieving a filtered ticket list. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternative tools, so selection logic is left mostly to inference.

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