search_tickets

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

The description adds significant context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: TicketSQL syntax pitfalls, meta-status values, and a mandatory field list. It warns about non-obvious syntax and gives examples, which helps agents understand the query behavior and expectations.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: purpose, grammar warning, syntax key, examples, and field guidance. The description is structured and efficient for a complex query tool, avoiding fluff while packing essential details.

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 complexity of TicketSQL and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers query construction and expected fields. It does not explain the return format explicitly, but the focus on fields implies the response structure. The main challenges are addressed.

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 the baseline is 3. The description enriches parameter semantics by explaining the query parameter with concrete examples and specifying the 'fields' parameter defaults. This adds value beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 'Search for tickets using RT's TicketSQL query language' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_ticket (single ticket retrieval) and get_ticketsql_grammar (grammar reference), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs consulting get_ticketsql_grammar before writing complex queries, providing a clear prerequisite. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use the tool, the guidance to consult the grammar and the context of sibling tools imply appropriate use cases.

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