List recent tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: statuses are validated against the account so invalid statuses won't silently return empty results, and empty statuses means all non-terminal statuses. It also notes that reply state is not derivable from status, which is a useful limitation beyond the 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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by status behavior and a clear alternative. Every sentence earns its place—no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with good annotations and schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and status behavior. It omits a precise definition of 'recent activity' and 'non-terminal status', but these are minor gaps given the defaults and sibling context, making it largely complete.

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 only 25%, with only the statuses parameter having a schema description. The description explains statuses can be names or codes and are validated, but days, limit, and pages are left to their self-evident names and schema defaults. This partially compensates for the low coverage but does not fully detail all parameters.

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 'List tickets by recent activity, optionally filtered by status' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with freshdesk_find_unanswered_tickets and mentioning the 'what is going on' use case.

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: 'This answers "what is going on"' and when not to: 'for "what do I owe an answer on", use freshdesk_find_unanswered_tickets instead'. Also clarifies that leaving statuses empty returns every non-terminal status, which is important usage guidance.

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