customer_tickets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the sorting behavior ('newest first'), which is useful. However, it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, whether there are authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The output schema exists, so return structure is covered elsewhere.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. It states the core purpose and the key sorting behavior efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 a simple listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the core idea. However, it omits critical usage context: what 'open_only' means, whether the default behavior is to filter to open tickets, and any pagination or limits. With no annotations, this leaves gaps for correct 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 0%, and the description adds no meaning for either parameter. 'customer_id' is implied by 'for a customer' but not clarified (format, required). 'open_only' is entirely unexplained, despite having a default value in the schema. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the resource ('Service tickets') and the scope ('for a customer') with a sorting detail ('newest first'). It distinguishes from siblings like customer_invoices (invoices vs tickets) and open_ticket (likely create), though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_ticket (likely for creation) or account_health. It doesn't mention prerequisites, filtering options, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.

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