search_tickets

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses filter semantics such as overdue and is_escalated behavior plus date formats, but omits pagination, result limits, default sorting, and permission/auth requirements. The existing output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 front-loaded with purpose and optionality, then organized into a filter list and examples. It is longer than minimal but most lines add concrete value; the structure is easy to scan.

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 13-parameter search tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is helpful but incomplete. It leaves three filters undocumented and gives no pagination, result-limit, or default-behavior guidance. The output schema covers return values, but key search-behavior gaps remain.

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. It documents 10 of 13 parameters with enum mappings for status/priority/type, date format details, and cross-tool sourcing for requester_id and company_id, but misses agent_id, group_id, and updated_since.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search and filter Freshdesk tickets', and notes all fields are optional. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_tickets tool, which prevents a 5.

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?

It gives concrete filter examples and cross-tool guidance for requester_id and company_id, showing how and when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit when-not guidance or a direct comparison to alternatives like list_tickets.

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