Search tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: results are ordered by most recently updated and returned as one compact line per ticket, with get_ticket for full detail.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or filler.

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 six-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: ordering, compact output, optional filters, AND combination, and the full-detail alternative. The main omission is explicit differentiation from my_tickets, but otherwise an agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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 high at 83%, so the schema already documents most parameter meaning. The description adds that all filters are optional and combine with AND, but does not provide additional syntax or per-parameter semantics beyond 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: search tickets across projects, with ordering. It distinguishes the tool from get_ticket by naming that sibling for full ticket details, but does not explicitly differentiate it from my_tickets or other listing siblings.

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?

It explains that every filter is optional and filters combine with AND, and it points to get_ticket when the compact result is insufficient. It lacks explicit when-not guidance relative to siblings such as my_tickets, but the usage context is clear.

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