autotask_search_service_call_ticket_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read/search operation, which is appropriate. However, it doesn't mention any side effects (none expected), auth requirements, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema implies (pageSize parameter). This is adequate but minimal.

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 very short (6 words), which could be seen as concise, but it provides only the bare minimum. It lacks any elaboration on what the search returns or how the parameters interact. It is not front-loaded with additional 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?

Given the tool has no output schema and only 3 optional parameters, the description is adequate to understand the basic purpose. However, it doesn't clarify if results are paged, the return format, or how to combine filters. For a search tool, more context on expected behavior would be beneficial.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches for resource assignments on service call tickets, specifying it's about technician assignments. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like autotask_search_service_calls (which searches service calls overall) and autotask_search_resources (which searches resources directly).

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 implies the tool is for searching when you need to find which technicians are assigned to service call tickets, but it doesn't explicitly guide when to use it vs alternatives like autotask_search_service_call_tickets (which searches tickets linked to service calls). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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