search_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 discloses key behavioral traits: 'Returns slim tickets' and 'API caps results at 1000 per query', which are important for expectation-setting. It does not cover authentication or rate limits but provides meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance and limitation. Every sentence contributes unique value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, usage, and a key API limitation. However, it omits details about pagination behavior and sort options, which could be important for complex queries. Still, the schema partially compensates, making the overall description reasonably complete.

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 only 25% (only the query parameter is described), and the tool description does not compensate. It mentions 'date ranges' as a narrowing strategy but does not explain page, per_page, or sort_by meaning or usage. The defaults and enum in the schema are present, but the description adds little semantic value for the undocumented 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 begins with 'Search tickets' and includes the endpoint 'GET /api/v2/search', clearly identifying the action and resource. It differentiates from sibling search tools by focusing on tickets and explicitly references get_ticket / get_ticket_comments for detail, establishing a distinct 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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Use this first to find tickets, then get_ticket / get_ticket_comments for detail', providing clear when-to-use guidance and naming alternatives. Also advises to narrow with date ranges when needed, covering a practical usage scenario.

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