Zendesk Unified Search

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds concrete behavioral details: paginated results at 100 per page, total count included, and organization results limited to name and ID. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences highly efficient: one for purpose and filtering, one for pagination and limitation. No filler words; every sentence adds value.

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 search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is searched, how to filter, pagination behavior, and result limitations. Minor gap: does not mention the response format for tickets/users, but the schema and examples are sufficient.

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%. The description enhances semantics by providing example filter syntax, explaining how page and per_page work together for pagination, and noting the limitation of organization results. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 that this tool searches across tickets, users, and organizations, with specific filter examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_tickets, search_users, and search_articles which are scoped to single types.

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 explains when to use it (cross-object search) and provides an alternative for organization details (get_organization). It does not explicitly contrast with single-type searches but strongly implies through the unified nature.

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