autotask_search_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 effectively describes key behaviors: the default pagination (25 results per page), how to get more results (use page parameter), and the scope of returned data (contrasted with get_ticket_details). However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some 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 extremely concise and well-structured: three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose (stating the tool's function, explaining pagination defaults, and guiding to an alternative tool). There is no wasted text, and information is front-loaded effectively.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's purpose, pagination behavior, and when to use alternatives. However, it lacks details on output format, error conditions, or performance considerations, which would be helpful for a search tool with many parameters.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or providing examples beyond the default pagination mention. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 verb ('Search for tickets') and resource ('in Autotask'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'autotask_get_ticket_details' for full data retrieval. It precisely defines what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 provides usage guidance: it specifies when to use this tool (for searching tickets) versus alternatives (use 'get_ticket_details for full data on a specific ticket'). It also mentions pagination behavior, helping the agent understand context and limitations.

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