list_org_tickets

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns all tickets for an organization and identifies the 'account-health view', but it does not mention pagination behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or how the result is structured. This is minimal but meaningful context beyond a tautology.

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 two short sentences with key information front-loaded. Every clause adds value: the first defines scope and purpose, the second provides a usage prerequisite. No redundancy or filler.

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 simple list operation with an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it gives purpose, scope, and a prerequisite workflow. The only notable gap is that it does not explain pagination behavior or warn about potentially large result sets, but the page/per_page parameters and output schema partially cover this.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains how to obtain organization_id via search_organizations, but page and per_page are left entirely to the schema's defaults and bounds without any added context about their practical use. This is only partial compensation for one of 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 action (List), the resource (tickets), and the scope (all tickets of one organization). It also names the endpoint and distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_tickets by emphasizing the organization-level account-health view.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to call search_organizations first to obtain the organization_id, providing a clear prerequisite workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus search_tickets, but the 'all tickets of one organization' scope gives strong contextual guidance.

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