zendesk_search_tickets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the return fields but omits details like pagination, rate limits, default limit of 50, or sorting behavior. This partial disclosure leaves some behavioral aspects unknown.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no fluff, and information is front-loaded. Every word adds value.

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?

The description covers search functionality, inputs, and outputs adequately given the output schema exists. However, it omits critical detail about the limit parameter (default value, max, behavior), which limits completeness for parameter understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning to parameters. It explains keywords (examples) and status (valid values) but the limit parameter is not mentioned at all. The description partially compensates but is incomplete for all three parameters.

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 tool searches Zendesk tickets by keyword and/or status, with a distinct verb+resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like zendesk_search_users and zendesk_get_tickets (which retrieves individual tickets), establishing a unique purpose.

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 practical guidance: explains keywords as free-text with an example, lists valid statuses, and notes leaving status empty returns all. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or mention when not to use this tool.

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