search_tickets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the core behavior (search by subject text, optional priority filtering), but does not mention read-only status, pagination/limit behavior, ordering, or exact-match semantics. Search implies a read operation, so this is not a safety hazard, but the description leaves return behavior unspecified.

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. The core behavior is stated first and the example usage in the second sentence earns its place.

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 search tool with three optional parameters, the description supplies enough information for an agent to issue a valid query with optional priority filtering. The lack of an output schema leaves return details implicit, but the purpose and input behavior are sufficiently covered.

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 67%, and the parameter descriptions already cover query and priority semantics. The tool description mostly restates this by saying 'by subject text' and 'optionally filtered by priority'; it adds no detail beyond the schema and does not clarify the limit parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('HubSpot support tickets'), and the matching/filter fields ('by subject text, optionally filtered by priority'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling ticket/contact and deal/search tools because it names the resource type explicitly.

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 second sentence gives concrete context: it is framed for natural-language questions like 'what high-priority tickets are open'. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the 'when not to use' bar but still gives useful usage context.

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