Search tickets with a query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: query character limit (512), pagination (30 per page, 10 pages max, 300 results cap), and exclusion of archived tickets. It also explains that these are hard API limits, not server-side choices, which helps the agent set expectations.

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 dense but well-organized: purpose statement, query syntax, then hard limits. Every sentence contributes necessary information for using the tool correctly. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of a flexible search endpoint, with no fluff.

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 lack of an output schema, the description covers the main usage complexity (query syntax, limits, archived exclusion) thoroughly. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but for a search tool returning ticket objects, this may be inferred from related tools. The absence of a response structure mention is a minor gap, not a critical one.

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 only 50% (query has a description, page does not). The description adds significant semantic value by detailing the Lucene-like query syntax, supported fields, date formats, and comparison operators. It also clarifies the page limit ('only 10 pages are reachable'), complementing the schema's minimum/maximum for page. This fully compensates for the coverage gap.

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 the tool's purpose as a filter/search endpoint for tickets, specifically 'for questions a plain listing cannot express.' This distinguishes it from the sibling tool freshdesk_list_tickets, which handles plain listings. The verb and resource are explicit.

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 provides clear context: use this when a plain listing cannot express the query, implying a complex, filter-based search. It does not explicitly name alternatives like freshdesk_get_ticket for single-ticket retrieval, but the contrast with 'plain listing' gives adequate guidance. No exclusions are stated, so it stops 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.