zendesk_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'search' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format results return (e.g., pagination, fields included), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and gets straight to the point.

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?

For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns (ticket objects? summaries?), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., maximum results, supported query syntax beyond the schema examples). The combination of missing behavioral context and output information creates 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'query' well-documented in the schema (including examples like 'status:open'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 verb ('search') and resource ('Zendesk tickets'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this search tool from sibling tools like 'zendesk_get_ticket' or 'zendesk_get_ticket_details', which also retrieve ticket information but through different mechanisms.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'zendesk_get_ticket' (presumably for retrieving specific tickets by ID) and 'zendesk_get_ticket_details' (possibly for more detailed views), there's no indication of when search is preferred over direct retrieval methods.

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