autotask_search_tickets

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears the full burden. It mentions pagination behavior (default 25 per page, use page parameter) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or if there are implicit filters (e.g., default shows all open tickets? Status parameter says 'omit for all open tickets' but is not described here). The transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 three concise sentences, no wasted words. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, pagination detail, and pointer to an alternative. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 10 parameters (all optional) and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (pagination defaults) and points to get_ticket_details for deeper detail. It does not explain the output structure, but without an output schema, that's acceptable. It provides enough context for basic usage.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema (e.g., 'use page parameter for more results' re-emphasizes pagination). It does not explain the relationship between parameters or typical use cases, but schema already provides clear descriptions for each parameter.

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 states 'Search for tickets in Autotask', clearly indicating the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling search tools like autotask_search_time_entries or autotask_search_ticket_notes, though the resource 'tickets' is distinct enough given the server's many search tools.

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 guidance: 'Returns 25 results per page by default. Use page parameter for more results.' It also directs users to 'Use get_ticket_details for full data on a specific ticket', indicating when to use an alternative tool. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance for other search tools but still offers valuable direction.

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