autotask_search_service_call_tickets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only search operation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination (default page size of 25), rate limits, or whether results are ordered. More detail on expected behavior is needed.

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 long, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (3 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately explains the bidirectional nature of the search. However, it omits details like pagination behavior and that both filter parameters are optional. A more complete description would mention the default page size and that results can be filtered by either or both IDs.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance 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 the tool searches for ticket associations on service calls, specifying bidirectional lookup ('which tickets are linked to a service call, or which service calls contain a specific ticket'). It distinguishes from sibling search tools by focusing on the association itself.

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 two explicit use cases for when to use the tool, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or what alternatives exist (e.g., searching tickets or service calls separately).

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