autotask_search_ticket_history

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

Without annotations, the description adequately discloses behavior: it returns entries ordered by Autotask and recommends client-side sorting/filtering. It implies a read-only operation without explicitly stating it.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then examples and behavioral note. No extraneous information, every 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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain the structure of returned entries, but the examples imply a list of changes. It distinguishes from sibling autotask_get_ticket_history by name, but could clarify the difference. Overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented. The description adds context that ticketId is required due to Autotask limitations, and notes pageSize default and max, which are already in schema. Marginal added value.

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 retrieves the audit trail of field changes for a ticket, with specific examples like status transitions and assignment changes. It distinguishes itself from other tools by focusing on history.

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 example questions that indicate when to use this tool, such as 'when did this ticket move from In Progress to Waiting Customer'. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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