autotask_search_ticket_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that results are returned ordered by Autotask and that client-side post-processing may be needed. It also notes Autotask does not support unscoped queries. However, it omits details like authorization requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: the first defines the tool's function with examples, the second explains output ordering and client-side processing. No redundant or vague language.

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 (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. It lacks details about the return structure (e.g., fields in the audit trail), but the examples partially compensate. Overall, it is mostly complete for its complexity.

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 described in the input schema. The description does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., ticketId's requirement and pageSize's default/max). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 priority edits. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like autotask_get_ticket_details by focusing on change history rather than current state.

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 use cases (e.g., 'when did this ticket move from In Progress to Waiting Customer') and mentions client-side sorting/filtering. However, it does not directly address when to use this vs. the sibling autotask_get_ticket_history, though the name implies search vs. get.

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