support.read_tickets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds a notable behavioral detail: 'Returns ticket details including customer message body,' which highlights the sensitive content. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or pagination behavior, leaving gaps expected for a read tool.

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 concise, containing two short sentences that front-load the primary action and then add useful details. No wasted words or irrelevant information, making it easy to scan.

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 simple read operation with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core purpose and return value. It does not explain default count behavior or pagination, but these are minor gaps given the schema covers defaults, making it almost complete.

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 all three parameters already described. The description redundantly lists the filter enums (status, priority) but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does mention the return body but that is not parameter-specific, so 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 action ('Read customer support tickets') and the resource, with specific filters (status, priority) and return details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like support.reply_to_ticket and support.search_knowledge_base by focusing on reading ticket data.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (reading support tickets) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. While sibling tools are distinct, there is no direct 'use this instead of X' guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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