list_tickets

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates safe read behavior. The description adds filter options but does not detail pagination (limit/offset), ordering, or default behavior (e.g., returns all tickets if no filter). No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence, which is concise but not front-loaded with the most critical information; the purpose is clear but could be structured to include additional key points like pagination. It earns its place but lacks richness.

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?

Given five optional parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral annotations beyond readOnly, the description is insufficient. It does not explain pagination, sorting, or the structure of returned data, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer usage.

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 partially compensates by mentioning three filters (company, status, search), mapping to company_id, status, and search. However, it omits pagination parameters (limit, offset) and provides no detail on valid values or search semantics.

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 states 'List Planhat tickets' with optional filters, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools, though the resource name itself provides distinction.

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 mentions optional filters (company, status, search term), indicating when to use this tool with conditions. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_ticket for single tickets or other list_* tools for other resources, but the context is adequate.

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