List tickets

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

Discloses a non-obvious implementation trait beyond the annotations: only projectId is filtered server-side while every other filter is applied client-side by this server on the returned list, which has real performance/latency implications. It also discloses the default return shape (compact summary) and how to widen it via format='full'.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the behavioral caveat, return-format note, and positioning. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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?

For a 16-param tool with no output schema, the description usefully compensates by describing the return format and default. It does not touch pagination behavior (limit/offset interaction) or default sort, though those are covered in the schema.

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 parameters are self-documenting and the baseline is 3. The description goes further by clarifying which filters are truly API-backed versus server-side and by explaining what format='full' actually returns (complete records including attachments), adding meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List tickets') and enumerates the filter dimensions. It is clearly distinguishable from get_ticket (single record) and list_ticket_comments, and it names its role as 'the default way to find a ticket id'.

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?

Explicitly positions itself as the default entry point for locating a ticket id, which routes agents away from other tools when browsing. It does not, however, state when to prefer get_ticket or how it relates to set_ticket_state/update_ticket.

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