autotask_search_ticket_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies read-only behavior and notes that results are ordered by Autotask with client-side sorting/filtering. It does not mention destructive actions, so the behavioral transparency is adequate.

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 with a parenthetical, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description only hints at the return format ('entries ordered by Autotask'). It does not detail the fields in each history entry, which is needed for parsing responses. Given the tool's complexity, this is a 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%, and the description adds value by explaining why ticketId is required (Autotask does not support unscoped queries) and specifying the default pageSize. This provides context 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 returns the audit trail of field changes for a ticket, with specific examples like status transitions and priority edits. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_tickets or get_ticket_details by focusing on historical changes.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to answer questions like...' providing clear context for when to use it. It does not list when not to use, but the examples and context are sufficient to differentiate from current-state tools.

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