Get Requester Tickets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or potential limits. The phrase 'all tickets' could be ambiguous regarding pagination, and no details on response shape are given.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has a simple schema with documented parameters, but no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain pagination (despite the 'page' parameter) or what the response contains beyond implying a list of tickets. This leaves gaps for a fully informed tool invocation.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions ('The requester ID', 'Page number'). The description adds little beyond confirming the requester filter ('specific requester'), so it does not meaningfully enhance the schema information.

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 'Retrieve all tickets for a specific requester (user ticket history)' clearly states the action (retrieve) and resource (tickets for a requester). It distinguishes from siblings like get_ticket (single ticket) and list_open_tickets (open only) by emphasizing 'all tickets' and 'history'.

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 provides clear context for when to use: when you need a specific requester's ticket history. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like search_tickets or list_open_tickets, nor does it mention when not to use this tool.

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