List service tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context — newest-first ordering and the status vocabulary (Unscheduled, Scheduled, En Route, Checked-In, Completed) — but says nothing about page size, default 25, cap of 100, or how paging terminates.

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 lead line ('Service tickets with customer, status, service date and time and technicians.') is a near-verbatim duplicate of the field list in the following sentence, wasting the most valuable front-loaded position. The substantive sentence itself is dense and useful, so the waste is localized.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating every returned field plus sort order. For a zero-required-parameter read list this is close to sufficient; only pagination expectations are left implicit in the schema's cursor description.

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 description coverage is 75%, with cursor, search and project_id already documented; the description only restates 'filter by project or search' and adds no syntax, matching behavior, or interaction rules. The undocumented limit parameter receives no compensating explanation. 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?

States a specific verb (reads/lists) and resource (Contractor Foreman Service Tickets) and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool surfaces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_service_ticket or update_service_ticket_status, which is the only missing piece for a 5.

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?

'Filter by project or search' implies the two narrowing paths, but there is no statement of when this list is the right choice versus fetching a single ticket, nor any guidance on paging through results. Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.

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