Find tickets awaiting our reply

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

Despite annotations already indicating read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it does not trust ticket status, compares last reply times per ticket, excludes customer-waiting and terminal tickets, and orders by customer recency. This is exactly the kind of context that helps an agent predict behavior beyond the safety flags.

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 well-structured and every sentence contributes. It opens with a clear one-liner, then expands into behavior, ordering, and next steps without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and easy to scan.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (a queue ordered by recency) and how to proceed. It explains the filtering logic, the exclusion criteria, and the intended workflow, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 goes beyond the schema by providing usage nuances: 'Widen it to catch quiet tickets' for days and 'Raise it on a busy instance' for pages, adding practical semantic value to the parameter descriptions already present.

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 what the tool does: it identifies the queue of tickets where the support team owes a reply. It uses a specific verb ('find'), names the resource ('tickets awaiting our reply'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining it does not rely on ticket status. The contrast with status-based filtering and the mention of comparing reply timestamps clarify its unique scope.

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 explicitly positions this as the entry point for 'what do I have to answer', providing clear context for when to use it. It also advises reading the full thread with freshdesk_get_ticket and freshdesk_get_conversations before drafting, which outlines a workflow. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives (e.g., freshdesk_search_tickets for different queries), so it falls short of a 5.

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