list_account_tickets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals useful traits: automatic name resolution, partial matching, default stage behavior, and a performance warning for 'ALL' stage ('slower for large accounts'). It stops short of describing auth or rate limits, but covers key operational behavior.

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 with a brief summary, a clarifying note about name resolution, and a clean Args list. Despite the length from 12 parameters, each sentence earns its place and directly supports tool usage.

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 tool's complexity (12 params, no annotations) and that an output schema exists, the description is thorough. It explains all parameters, defaults, and caveats such as pagination max ('take: max 200'), making it sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 0%, so the description fully compensates by detailing every parameter: accepted formats, defaults, allowed values, and even performance implications (e.g., 'ALL' is slower). This adds far more meaning than the bare schema, which lacks descriptions for all properties.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List tickets for a specific account (company/organization).' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tickets, and it explicitly mentions the ability to pass either a company name or account ID, reinforcing the purpose.

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 on when to use this tool (for account-specific tickets) and even states a prerequisite shortcut: 'You do NOT need to call list_accounts first.' However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with the likely alternative list_tickets, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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