Search View Items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds the HTTP method (PUT) and the dynamic view_id=0 behavior, but no further behavioral details like pagination defaults, auth requirements, or response shape.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the endpoint and core action. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy 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?

The schema is highly detailed and annotations cover safety, but there is no output schema and the description does not mention response format or pagination behavior. For a search tool with nested parameters, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in detail. The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond referencing 'inline view configuration' and explaining view_id=0, which the schema also mentions. 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 action ('Search tickets') and the mechanism ('inline view configuration'), with a notable differentiator: passing view_id=0 enables dynamic querying without a saved view. This distinguishes it from gorgias_list_view_items and other search tools.

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 provides clear context by explaining the inline configuration approach and the special view_id=0 behavior for dynamic searches. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like gorgias_list_view_items or gorgias_search, leaving the agent to infer when to prefer this tool.

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