similar_tickets

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, closed-world safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the result fields returned and, importantly, a `warning` when only keyword search was available, which tells the agent results may be weaker than semantic matches. It doesn't mention ranking, thresholds, or what happens when nothing matches.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then optional filters, then return shape. No filler; the only mild redundancy is describing return fields that an output schema already declares.

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 four-parameter read-only search tool with an output schema, this covers the essential invocation semantics and the degradation caveat. The residual gap is sibling routing (when this beats precedents_for) and the undocumented `limit` parameter.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load: it explains `text` (symptom, error message, ticket body) and that `source` and `project` are optional restrictions, and routes to list_sources for source values. It says nothing about `limit` (default 5) or the expected format of `source`/`project`, leaving half the parameters underspecified.

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 ('Find past tickets similar to `text`') and clarifies what `text` should contain (symptom, error message, ticket body). This is clearly distinct from get_ticket (single lookup) and list_sources, though it never mentions precedents_for, the closest conceptual sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing — paste a symptom or error message to find prior occurrences — and it points to list_sources for valid `source` values. However, it never says when to prefer this over precedents_for or get_ticket, nor when the keyword-only fallback makes results unreliable.

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