List Ticket Fields

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value beyond them: the exact returned attributes (id, type, active/required, dropdown option values) and pagination behavior ('cursor-paginated in Zendesk's default field order'). It stops short of richer detail like rate limits or total-count semantics, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded with what it returns, then why to call it, then behavioral notes. Three dense sentences with no filler; every clause 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so concretely (id, type, active/required, option values). Combined with the pagination note, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 cursor and page_size are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only alludes to pagination generally and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (ticket field definitions) with explicit scope: system fields and custom fields, plus the returned attributes. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_labels, get_ticket, or create_ticket.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: to discover numeric field ids and option tags that create_ticket and update_ticket expect in custom_fields, with a concrete example ('set severity to High'). This routes the agent to the correct tool and names the downstream alternatives.

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