autotask_search_service_calls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, whether there are rate limits, what the return format looks like, or if results are paginated. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a search tool with well-documented parameters.

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's moderate complexity (search with 5 optional parameters), 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks behavioral context about safety, authentication, rate limits, and return format that would be helpful for an AI agent.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description mentions filtering by 'company, status, or date range' which maps to parameters companyId, status, startAfter, and startBefore, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('service calls in Autotask'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'autotask_search_tickets' or 'autotask_search_service_call_tickets', but the resource specificity ('service calls') provides inherent differentiation.

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 implies usage context by listing filterable attributes ('Filter by company, status, or date range'), suggesting when this tool would be appropriate. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus other search tools (like 'autotask_search_service_call_tickets') or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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