search_tickets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little beyond the schema. The limit default (50) is already in the schema, and nothing is said about pagination, result caps, permission/scope requirements, or whether workspace is required to see results.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is terse and scannable, with no wasted prose. The structured arg list is slightly redundant with the schema but earns its place given 0% schema description coverage.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all parameters are named. However, the absence of annotations plus missing routing guidance and pagination/scope behavior leaves the agent under-informed for a 6-parameter search tool.

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 must compensate, and it documents all six parameters including a concrete JQL-like query example ('status = in_progress', 'assignee = currentUser()'). It leaves gaps such as the valid value space for status_id/project_id, which the schema does not supply either.

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?

States a specific verb (search/list) and resource (work items/tickets) with a scope qualifier ('in a workspace'). It does not differentiate from the sibling get_my_tickets, which covers an overlapping retrieval case, so an agent must guess between them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite siblings get_ticket, get_my_tickets, and list_workspaces covering adjacent retrieval needs. Usage is only implied by the word 'search'.

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