Get Zendesk Ticket History

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses oldest-first ordering, resolution of assignee/requester/group ids to names, comment presence markers, filtering of system-generated notification events, and that updates containing only such events produce no entry. This is rich behavioral context that annotations cannot convey.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence carries useful behavioral, filtering, or usage detail. It is relatively long and repeats 'oldest-first' a few times, but the tool's filtering and pagination behavior justify the length.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return semantics, and it does: entry structure, actor/channel/field changes, comment markers, system-event filtering, pagination, and ordering. It also tells the agent where to obtain ticket_id (search_tickets or list_tickets), so nothing needed to select and invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates cursor and page_size semantics already present in the schema (oldest-first, dropped audits) and adds no substantial new parameter meaning beyond the phrase 'long-lived ticket'.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a ticket's change history — its audit trail — as a chronological, oldest-first timeline.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating comments appear only as presence markers and pointing to list_ticket_comments or get_ticket for comment bodies, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does and what it does not.

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?

It names concrete questions the tool answers ('what happened on this ticket?', 'why was it reassigned?', 'when did it go to pending?') and gives explicit alternatives: 'fetch the bodies with list_ticket_comments (or get_ticket(include_comments=true) for a short thread).' It also flags the filtered-event behavior so an agent won't expect a raw audit log.

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