Items en tickets zoeken

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that filtering is client-side, which is a significant behavioral trait affecting performance and result completeness. It also implies a read-only search operation. It could mention pagination or result limits, but the schema already documents maxItems. The client-side filtering disclosure is valuable and goes beyond the schema.

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 three sentences with no waste. The primary purpose and use case are front-loaded, and the client-side filtering caveat is placed at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a search tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the main use case and the key behavioral caveat (client-side filtering). It does not describe the return format, but the fields parameter already explains compact vs full output. The only minor gap is not mentioning that results may be incomplete if the workspace is large, though the client-side filtering warning implies it.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds context for the search use case (checking for existing tickets) but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Zoekt'), a clear resource ('work items (tickets) in een workspace'), and a concrete use case: checking whether a ticket already exists and retrieving its ticket number and exact title. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning workspace-scoped search and client-side filtering, which helps an agent tell it apart from teamhood_get_item or teamhood_raw_get.

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 gives explicit context for when to use this tool: to check for an existing ticket and to retrieve the ticket number and exact title. It also warns about client-side filtering and advises keeping the workspace scope limited for large accounts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the use case is clear enough.

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