zendesk_analyze_tickets

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

The description clearly states it fetches full ticket details including all comments and returns summary statistics and complete ticket data. This sufficiently discloses the read-only nature and scope of data retrieval. No annotations contradict this.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately state what the tool does and returns, with no unnecessary words.

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 the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the tool's purpose and data retrieval but lacks details about the output format (what summary statistics are returned) and any potential limitations.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds context about analysis purpose but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool analyzes tickets for a brand over a time period, fetching full details and comments for root cause analysis, and returns summary statistics and complete data. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like single-ticket retrieval or search.

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 implies a use case (root cause analysis) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist for different purposes, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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