List Zendesk Tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description discloses two non-obvious traits: the non-recency default ordering and that each ticket's description is truncated to a 200-char excerpt (with get_ticket as the escape hatch). It does not describe the response envelope or page-limit exhaustion behavior, but the truncation and ordering caveats are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying a distinct fact: ordering, page-size naming trap, pagination mechanics, and the search_tickets alternative plus truncation note. Front-loaded with the ordering caveat, which is the highest-risk assumption an agent would make.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers pagination, ordering, and the data-fidelity caveat an agent needs to decide whether to follow up with get_ticket. Minor gap: it doesn't characterize the returned list shape or whether an empty cursor signals the last page, both of which matter for loop termination.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot: it warns that page size is page_size, not per_page (the offset-based parameter on search_tickets), heading off a likely misuse, and clarifies that cursor values come from prior responses. That is genuine added semantics rather than restatement.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List tickets') and immediately pins down scope and ordering: cursor-based pagination, Zendesk default ascending ticket id order, not recency. It explicitly contrasts with search_tickets, so an agent can distinguish the two without inspecting either schema.

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?

Explicit routing: use this tool for straight ticket enumeration; use search_tickets with a query for recency or any other criterion. It also tells the agent to paginate by passing the returned cursor, covering the continuation path.

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