list_tickets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the tool's listing behavior and includes a caution about error reporting, which hints at potential failure modes. However, it omits behavioral details such as pagination limits, rate limits, or auth requirements, making the transparency adequate but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first sentence states purpose and filtering options, the second adds a critical behavioral instruction. Every word 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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return format, pagination behavior, the 'relaciones' parameter, or how results are ordered. The warning is useful but insufficient to make the tool fully understandable without external knowledge.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The tool description summarizes filters by date, category, and status, which aligns with schema properties but adds no new meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'List' and resource 'support tickets' along with filtering dimensions. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_ticket' (singular) and 'list_tickets_log' (log), but does not explicitly contrast them, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 provides a warning about not fabricating data on failure, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_ticket for a single ticket, list_tickets_log for history). There is no context on prerequisites or optimal scenarios.

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