search_tickets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds 'return matching IDs' and '[tier: readonly-owner]', which indicate the operation is read-only and returns identifiers, but it does not discuss pagination, empty-result behavior, filtering semantics, or permission nuances.

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?

Three concise sentences: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the endpoint mapping and a security tier hint. Each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy.

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 (11 parameters, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It lacks information about parameter usage, return format, filtering behavior, and edge cases, making it inadequate for reliable invocation.

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 only 9% (only 'status' is described), and the description provides zero parameter guidance. Ambiguous parameters like 'includeData' and 'extra_filters' remain completely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Search' with a clear resource ('tickets (invoices)') and states the outcome ('return matching IDs'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_tickets by indicating this is a search operation that returns IDs rather than full objects.

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 verb 'search' and mention of 'matching IDs' imply this is for filtering, but the description offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives like get_tickets. The tier hint at least signals it is read-only for the owner.

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