autotask_search_ticket_charges

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 effectively reveals key behavioral traits: the operation is a search (implying read-only), unfiltered queries are 'expensive' (performance impact) and 'capped at 10 results' (limitation). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, error handling, or pagination beyond pageSize.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains what charges are, and the third provides critical usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the resource being searched, provides important behavioral constraints, and gives parameter guidance. The main gap is the lack of output format description, which would be helpful since there's no output schema.

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 both parameters fully. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing that ticketId is 'strongly recommended' and explaining why (unfiltered queries are expensive/capped), but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Search for charges') and resource ('on a specific ticket'), with additional clarification that 'Charges represent materials, costs, or expenses billed against a ticket.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'autotask_get_ticket_charge' (singular) and 'autotask_create_ticket_charge' (creation) by focusing on searching multiple charges.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Providing ticketId is strongly recommended — unfiltered queries are expensive and capped at 10 results.' This clearly advises against unfiltered searches and explains the consequences, helping the agent choose appropriate parameters.

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