get_outage_tickets

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description's 'List' action is consistent with that. The description adds only the account scope and does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, filtering, or return format. With annotations present, the safety profile is covered, so this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently without redundancy.

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 simple paginated list with a readOnly annotation and well-documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. It lacks any detail about ticket fields or response structure, but since no output schema exists and the tool is straightforward, the minimal description plus schema is sufficient.

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 fully documents page and limit with defaults and bounds. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List outage tickets for the account.' It clearly identifies the operation as a list of outage tickets scoped to the account. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_ticket or create_outage_ticket, though the plural 'List' implies a collection operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention the singular get_ticket or any criteria for choosing this tool, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the action 'List'.

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