search_tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the description is consistent with a pure read. It adds that matching happens against title and body text, which is useful beyond the annotations, but says nothing about result caps, pagination, ranking, or what an empty query returns.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and the filter caveat; nothing is wasted. The '[policy: allow]' prefix is metadata noise rather than helpful description content.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and both parameters get at least prose coverage. The remaining gap is status value semantics and result-set size behavior, which is moderate but not fatal for a two-parameter search.

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 carries the burden; it does explain that query matches title/body text and that status is an optional filter. However, it gives no valid status values (the schema has no enum) and does not explain that the empty-string defaults likely mean 'match all'/'no filter'.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (tickets) plus the searched fields (title/body), which distinguishes it from get_ticket, which presumably fetches one ticket. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by status' implies a retrieval workflow, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over list_pending or get_ticket, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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