search_tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that - no note on pagination, result limits, filter combination semantics, or whether all params are optional.

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 compact sentence that leads with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is arguably too terse for the guidance an agent needs, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing for a search tool is whether filters AND together, the default result scope, and how it differs from list_tickets - gaps the annotations cannot fill.

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 0% because the real field docs sit inside $defs behind a params $ref, so the description's enumeration of type/entity/priority/status does useful compensation. It stops short of explaining values - no enum hints for type or priority, and no indication that every filter is optional/nullable.

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 (Search) and resource (tickets) plus the four filterable facets, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling list_tickets or search_chains, leaving the agent to infer which is appropriate.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as list_tickets for unfiltered retrieval or search_chains for chain-oriented queries. The agent gets no routing help.

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