list_tickets

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It truthfully states there are no filtering parameters and mentions support for pagination and sorting. However, it does not explicitly declare that the tool is read-only (though implied), nor does it discuss rate limits or authorization. Still, the behavioral traits described are accurate and sufficient for safe use.

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 front-loaded: it states the main purpose in the first sentence, then provides usage guidance and additional details about pagination/sorting. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The structure is logical and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the lack of filtering, provides search alternatives, and mentions pagination and sorting capabilities. However, it does not describe the return format or potential limitations (e.g., default page size, maximum results), but the schema covers pagination details. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a list operation.

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%: all four parameters (page, per_page, sort_by, sort_order) have descriptions in the input schema. The description adds context that there are no filtering parameters, but the parameter descriptions already explain their purpose and defaults. With full schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not add significant new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 that the tool lists ALL tickets in the Zendesk instance with no filtering, and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search' tool by explicitly saying that for filtered queries one should use 'search' instead. The verb 'list' combined with 'ALL tickets' makes the scope unambiguous.

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 tells when to use this tool ('only when you genuinely want the full chronological feed across all queues, e.g. for a global activity report') and when not to use it ('for any filtered query use `search` instead', with examples of search operators). This provides clear guidance and alternatives.

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