search_tickets_tool

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

There are no annotations and the description is minimal. It indicates the search mechanism, but does not disclose return behavior, pagination, output format, or any constraints or side effects, so the agent's behavioral expectations are largely implicit.

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 filler or repeated information. It compactly states the tool's core purpose.

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 description, combined with a detailed schema and output schema, is sufficient for basic invocation. However, the lack of usage guidance and any behavioral caveats makes it only minimally complete for an agent evaluating all alternatives and consequences.

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 provides 100% coverage of the parameters, including meaningful examples for the query string and order_by behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already present in 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a ticket search operation using RT query syntax. It distinguishes broadly from single-ticket or status-focused sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_my_open_tickets or get_new_tickets.

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: an agent would use this when a ticket lookup requires arbitrary RT query syntax. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternative ticket lookup tools.

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