Get My Open Tickets Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe, non-mutating read, and an output schema exists so return shape need not be described. The description adds only that results are scoped to one assignee's open tickets; it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or how 'open' is defined relative to 'new'.

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?

A single sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded and no filler; nothing needs to be cut. It is lean to the point of omitting useful context, but that is a completeness problem rather than a structural one.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering the response, the remaining burden on the description is mostly disambiguation. Given seven ticket-related siblings, the definition does not do enough to establish when this tool is the right pick over get_new_tickets_tool or search_tickets_tool, which is the one real gap an agent faces.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'Username to search for'. The description's phrase 'assigned to a user' loosely corresponds to the owner parameter but adds no format, casing, or matching semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get all open tickets') plus a scope qualifier ('assigned to a user'), which is enough to understand the operation at a glance. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_new_tickets_tool or search_tickets_tool, so the agent must infer whether 'open' overlaps with 'new'.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (search_tickets_tool for filtered queries, get_new_tickets_tool for newly created tickets). The routing decision among these closely named siblings is left entirely to inference.

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