autotask_search_ticket_charges

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that unfiltered queries are expensive and capped at 10 results, and implies that filtered queries may return more results. This is good transparency, though it does not mention pagination or whether results are ordered.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the key action and follow up with important usage constraints. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 simplicity (two optional parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description completely addresses the agent's need to select and invoke it correctly. It covers purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral constraints, leaving no significant gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, meaning each parameter already has a description. The description adds value by explaining the context of the parameters (why ticketId is recommended) and inferring behavior (capped results). This goes beyond mere schema documentation, earning a score above baseline.

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: to search for charges on a ticket, defining 'charges' as materials, costs, or expenses. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'autotask_get_ticket_charge' (which retrieves a single charge) and 'autotask_create_ticket_charge' (which creates a charge), making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.

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 strong guidance by recommending the use of ticketId and warning against unfiltered queries due to expense and result cap. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., when needing specific charges vs. searching) or alternative tools, leaving some room for improvement.

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