Search tickets

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's disclosure of page size (50 per page), sort order (most recently updated first), and pagination dependency (cursor from previous page) adds real operational context. Returned fields are enumerated but overlap with the existing output schema, so not a full 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with the search scope and pagination front-loaded and nothing extraneous. The trailing enumeration of returned fields is largely recoverable from the output schema, a small 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it still adds pagination, ordering, and match scope. The main gap is the absence of when-to-use routing against the other four ticket siblings, plus no mention of the status filter.

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 67%; the description clarifies what 'query' matches against (subject or messages), which adds meaning beyond the schema's terse 'Words to match.' It says nothing about 'status' filtering or 'cursor' usage, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Search support tickets') with the matching scope spelled out (words in subject or messages), which distinguishes it from the single-ticket sibling get_ticket. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 says how the search behaves but never says when to choose it over get_ticket, export_tickets, or an unfiltered list. The closest thing to guidance ('leave out to list all tickets') lives in the schema, not the description, leaving usage to inference.

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