autotask_search_service_call_tickets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies this as a search/query operation (implied read-only), but doesn't mention pagination behavior beyond the pageSize parameter, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like. The description adds basic context but lacks important operational details.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, well-structured, and front-loaded with essential information.

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 search tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context. However, it doesn't explain what the search returns (association objects? ticket IDs? service call IDs?), pagination behavior beyond the pageSize parameter, or error conditions. The description is complete enough for basic usage but lacks depth for optimal agent 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions filtering by service call or ticket but doesn't provide syntax examples, format requirements, or usage patterns beyond what the parameter descriptions already state.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('search for ticket associations on service calls') and resources ('tickets', 'service calls'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on the association between tickets and service calls, unlike broader search tools like autotask_search_tickets or autotask_search_service_calls.

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 provides clear usage context with 'Use this to find which tickets are linked to a service call, or which service calls contain a specific ticket.' This gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling search tools.

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