List tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely new behavioral trait not in structured data: ordering is not guaranteed newest-first. It doesn't discuss result volume tradeoffs beyond what the schema states.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: capability first, filters second, ordering caveat and alternative last. Every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the returned summary fields, which is the main completeness gap for a list tool. Pagination defaults and limits are left to the schema, which is acceptable, though the absence of any note about page-size caps or total counts is a minor gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns an extra point by enumerating exactly what the summary projection contains — the schema only says 'every field of each item instead of a summary', leaving the default payload shape undefined. That enumeration is real information an agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List tickets') with the summary field set enumerated inline (number, title, status, priority, customer, end user, technician, dates) and the filterable dimensions named. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from list_modified_tickets, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit selection context: filter by status and/or customer, and 'Newest first is not guaranteed: use list_modified_tickets for recent activity' names the alternative plus the condition that selects it. It stops short of advising when to use `full` versus the summary view or when to page.

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